Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: I just heard some R on Fox say he wanted “more limited government” what does that mean?

Posted 2 years ago on March 4, 2012, 7:23 a.m. EST by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I think he means he wants more government, limited to doing just the things he likes. Such as telling people who to marry, and what kind of medical procedures you must have or what you and you doctor talk about. As long as the government goes to war where he wants and puts the people he wants in prison, then that’s it that’s all he wants. I think that’s what it means.

230 Comments

230 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Hey you forgot "What happens in the bedroom." Someone has to watch to see that you don't use any form of birth controil. Or, even if your wife's employer can provide insurance coverage that pays for it at no cost to themselves, that you don't actually get to use it.

But, if she would like for you to use Viagra, for some reason, it is OK for her insurance to cover that, even if her employer objects to sex for any purpose other than having unwanted children. Do I have that right" BTW, you should use "does" not "dose" in your title, I think.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

true and maybe a few others too, not sure if they're telling us everything they want control over, we know they hate science and so schools are a threat to them too

you're right I saw that and it wouldn't let me edit, every time I listen to an R my head gets twisted up ;).

[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Let's see; If you are LGBT theGOP doesn't want you. If you are a woman the GOP doesn't want you. If you are a teacher the GOP doesn't want you. If you are a firefighter, the GOP doesn't want you. If you are a nurse, the GOP doesn't want you. If you are a cop, the GOP doesn't want you. If you are in a union, the GOP doesn't want you. If you are black, the GOP doesn't want you. If you are brown, the GOP doesn't want you. If you aren't religious, the GOP doesn't want you. If you are poor, the GOP doesn't want you. If you are college educated, the GOP doesn't want you. If you are a veteran, the GOP doesn't want you. If you need Social Security, the GOP doesn't want you. If you want to keep your insurance after a negative diagnosis, the GOP doesn't want you. If you want the rich to pay there fair share, the GOP doesn't want you. If you believe that planet is warming exacerbated by humans, the GOP doesn't want you. If you believe in science the GOP doesn't want you. If you think alternative energy should be developed, the GOP doesn't want you. If you believe that the financial services industry should be regulated, the GOP doesn't want you. If you want birth control and preventative healthcare for women, the GOP doesn't want you. If you want clean air, water, food, and medicine, the GOP doesn't want you. Now I know that their are many more groups of people that the GOP doesn't want, but I am limited on time.

The bottom line is they want a few old bigoted white guys and they would like to suppress the votes of all of the groups I just named. That is the GOP plan for success, as I see it.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You might be right, but that's a pretty big tent for the GOP, I mean really you only need one King.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

But it's good to be the king, no?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I remember W saying that,and in theory it should work out well, seein' how I'm a good man and all, problem is I know my son is a good man.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Pass the torch.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

wait a minute that sounds good...what I'm talking about is bad,bad ,bad even good people can't believe their shit don't stink...That's what gets us in trouble ...this is metaphor

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Metaphor is better than no phor at all?

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

your "understanding " of the GOP is wrong, stupid, uninformed.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Sorry but that is what they have been saying. Unless you believe that most Republican's will vote against their personal interests, the fact that the GOP does not act in favor of these constituencies, I wouldn't expect them to vote GOP. You don't deny these interests are abandoned by them do you?.

Or is name-calling your normal reaction to everything?

People may be smarter than you think.

[-] 1 points by Chris77 (3) 2 years ago

I agree that people are smart. What I don't agree with is a giant overreaching government that feels it necessarry to tell me what I have to do to live my life. That is not the job of the US government as outlined by the constitution. Why is that so difficult to imagine? Picture living how you want to live without some man or woman who doesn't know you or your family or your values dictating your life. That is how I interperet the constitution.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

Unless you believe that most Republican's will vote against their personal interests, the fact that the GOP does not act in favor of these constituencies, I wouldn't expect them to vote GOP. You don't deny these interests are abandoned by them do you?.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Can we keep the far reaching corporations out of it too?

Their effect is at least as great.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

Really? "They" have been saying? where? when?

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

There is this thing called a Google. You type in a stupid position, union busting, privatizing social security, replacing Medicare with vouchers etc. You will find the GOP on the side opposite the interests of each of these groups. I am sure that will come as a surprise to you, but the evidence is clear.

If you think any of these is inaccurate you are welcome to post any evidence you can find to show that the GOP supports their positions. I will give you 12 hours, even though it should take you only minutes. 1, 2, 3, Goooo!

[-] 1 points by Chris77 (3) 2 years ago

Unions once had a place and a cause. Now they are just political arms. Instead of being the champions of labor that they once were they are now corrupt leverage against buisness. And while all of these things you mention are things that the GOP opposes NOW... It's mainly due to the complete mismanagement of these programs in the past by BOTH parties. Privatizing social security so that it is no longer a government slush fund? I like it! While I do not by any stretch support all of the GOP's crusades... Some of them are very appealing. If I don't desire to be a part of a union why should I have to pay dues? If I want my social security deposits secure why shouldn't I have that right as well?

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

You want to fix Social Security? It would have been fixed a long time ago if the parties were prevented from raiding the fund. In the melt down if you were in a private account you would have lost you shirt along with those who lost a large portion of their 401 K's. If the GOP has its way, they will deregulate the financial services industry which is why the financial meltdown happened and it will be set up to happen again with your privatized SS account.. I won't argue the union question. I think you can figure that one out. Notice though, how millions of workers have lost all of their benefits by being forced to work part time or on contract.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

You will give me 12 hours? i don't answer to you and your idiocy.

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

I was afraid you wouldn't be able to do it so I gave even you plenty of time. Well failure gives you a chance to reconsider your position from a position of humility. You do claim humility don't you? I heard today there have been 1100 bills introduced in state legislatures this session to abridge women's control and management of their reproductive health.

"Women want health care, not politics Posted on February 28, 2012 | Leave a comment By David Greenberg, Contributing Columnist With all the problems facing us, it is puzzling that access to life-saving cancer screening and birth control are occupying so much of our attention. 2011 saw a record number of attacks on reproductive health care, with more than 1,100 bills introduced by lawmakers, of which 135 were enacted. This was a 75 percent increase over 2009. We are now witnessing a campaign against women’s health waged under a politicized banner of “religious freedom”.

And that is just one issue. You have a whole bunch. Tag, you're it.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

what attacks on reproductive healthcare? birth control pills are cheap . so are condoms. need a mammogran? and can affor have health insurance? medicaid. This a phoney non story by the dems.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 2 years ago

By almost any measure, 2011 saw unprecedented attention to issues related to reproductive health and rights at the state level. In all 50 states, legislators introduced more than 1,100 reproductive health and rights-related provisions, a sharp increase from the 950 introduced in 2010. By year’s end, 135 of these provisions had been enacted in 36 states, again an increase from the 89 enacted in 2010 and the 77 enacted in 2009. (Note: This analysis refers to reproductive health and rights-related “provisions,” rather than bills or laws, since bills introduced and eventually enacted in the states contain multiple relevant provisions.) Fully 68% of these new provisions, 92 provisions in 24 states, restrict access to abortion services, a striking increase from last year, when 26% of new provisions restricted abortion. The 92 new abortion restrictions shattered the previous record of 34 abortion restrictions adopted in 2005.

[-] 0 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

Not at all. He's pretty spot on. America-hating, working for the 1%. Espousing Christian values, but living greedy, hateful and cruel. Republicon.

[-] -1 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

you're talking about democrats.

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

So you believe in the Easter Bunny? Dumb.

http://www.ninedemands.com/petitions/working-america

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

Image and Vote! Image and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

[-] 0 points by B76RT (-357) 2 years ago

you work for hallmark?

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

"A few old bigoted white guys" with lots and lots of money!

The GOP is now a cult, and their Charlie Manson is the greedy few in the 1%.

Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

Image and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

"A few old bigoted white guys" with lots and lots of money!

The GOP is now a cult, and their Charlie Manson is the greedy few in the 1%.

Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

Image and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

[-] -1 points by JIFFYSQUID92 (-994) from Portland, OR 2 years ago

"A few old bigoted white guys" with lots and lots of money!

The GOP is now a cult, and their Charlie Manson is the greedy few in the 1%.

Unite and Win! Unite and Win! 2010 Never EVER Again!!

Image and Vote! Image and Vote! "We the 1%" NOT What They Wrote!!

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Yep. You nailed that.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Do you think the everyday Rs don't see this or do they really think that's "small government" It's amazing, this morning I was thinking that the GOP is Lucy and the voters are Charlie Brown, thank you for stoppig by.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Everyday R's? Depends on their level of education.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I guess, but it’s almost seems like a mental disease, they see no conflict in say, "mandatory sentencing laws" and "small government".

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Like I said, it really depends on the level of education. There are those that are getting SSI that spend hours getting toasted in a bar and talk about the evil government socialist programs.

Then there are those that know damn well what faux privatization is and that the public is going to continue to pay. So, in order to hide this information they focus on crime and pretentious morality. Some people buy into it.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

True a lot of them know exactly what they are doing. You may know that the private prison owners suggested SB 1070 to help drum up business, which of course the tax payers have to pay for, then less money for say education, = more customers for the prisons and so on. Halliburton takes over KP duty for the troops? WTF, that's how you get to know the guys in the kitchen, they do what they want and call it what sounds good.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Yeah, GEO.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

hmmm, looks like they might need some help in Chicago, I hope that OWS will be there in numbers to help them out,

These guys look like ALEC for nations instead of states, it was in the 80's whem Cockburn told me about, "IMF, dirty M*F keep them on the hook with insupportable debt."

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

There are a lot of people planning on attending.

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I hope that it is peaceful and powerful!!

(and the cops don't get out of hand, mostly)

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I do too.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I was looking at this and what at first I meant as something I remembered that sounded good. But sitting here I realized that, the song lyric really did inform me, till I heard this line, I had though of IMF as a good thing, lending money to people that need it, that's good right? But as I educated myself because I wanted to know what he meant, I learned about predatory lending, international and personal, funny how a clever line can lead a person to learn something sometimes.

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

IMF is extortion. It's based on Neo-liberal economic policies.

This is from 2001 and there is more current information available but I am reading other stuff and this was easy to grab.

It's vile and evil crap.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

There is newer and older stuff, they have been at it for a while, water is something I hear more and more about, how hard do you think someone will work for a drink of water? I’ve heard it said that the Constitution is not a suicide pact, well I don’t think “free enterprise” is either.

Just cause free enterprise says it’s so, don’t mean we can’t say it’s wrong.

[-] 2 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

They will work very hard for water or look for other sources which may not be as clean. It's a death sentence.

I think it's fair that we call it as we see it.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It is, and it is certainly a death grip on any town or country they can do this in. I see more and more the world as a place where those that have are trying to squezze as much as possible from every resource including people, if you can get a hold of the water you can squezze real hard.

[-] 3 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

and food or any other necessity.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

Very true! If you read some of the history of the American West, water wars were a constant feature. Water is properly held as a public utility to be distributed and priced by the government (people) to remove the possibility of price gouging and ensure that profits are used for constant improvements, assuming the government is not itself corrupt. One of the problems we have had in the US is corrupt local governments that have not used profits to upgrade water and sewage facilities for several decades, but rather used the money to try to give tax breaks to businesses or build fancier facilities, such as museums, parks and libraries (these are important, too, but not when the basic infrastructure is crumbling). Then the Republicans argue government just can't work. Corrupt government won't work.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Good morning, welcome to the forum.

For the most part we are lucky in American to have water available, but we still drink it from bottles. The problems you raise about corruption is involved in this and so many other things as well, even in the private sector, insider trading, false disclosures, transparency is the best cure, the cleansing power of light will chase the cockroaches back into the shadows. This works against this small town deals, but it is hard to do, here in AZ the sheriff is a disgrace but his brother and law runs the paper, so it’s almost word of mouth to hear about the crap he does. Maybe someday we will stand outside their office with the people’s mic and shame them into repenting.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (25038) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Yes subtle poisons. They can be snuk into anything. Its not always what is said it can be a matter of how it is said.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So true, and timing, and placement, we just assume some things are good, whenever we hear them, like freedom, but what about when that means your boss is free to take away your healthcare or fire you on a whime, anything, unexamied can be used to mislead, even things that sound like they would always be good, leading money to people in need, sounds good but it bulids on and depends on that concept, that money always makes money, not a bad thing, but just a thing, not a perfect thing.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (25038) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Things to be used and/or twisted.

People pay attention to content but also to context.

Also look at action in context to spoken words of support or belief.

[-] -3 points by reaclas (-1) 2 years ago

unlike you libtards that have NO education eh??

[-] 4 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

I am quite educated.

Look, there are Republicans that do not agree with their insane promises for social reform. Yet, they ignore all of this and still vote Republican. This ain't your Daddy's Republican party. If you are one of those people that follows Fux Nus and swears up and down it is the gospel truth then you are devoid of critical thinking skills.

Not my problem.

[-] -3 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Even pigs can be educated to sing.

[-] 5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Yes, you have been. You are living proof of that.

[+] -4 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

I'm educated enough to not rationalize around the exact mechanisms used by those truly in power to commandeer this nation.

Whereas, you have been programmed to remain in the dark so as to be useful as a pawn to perpetuate the grand illusion.

[-] 5 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

Let me point this out: You have no power because you were hired to spew. So, don't even talk about rationalization. The only pawn here is you. You are a tool. You will be disposed of. And all of this will have been for naught.

[-] -3 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Says the successfully programmed child that truly should have been left behind.

I pull your strings everyday.

[-] -3 points by DKAtoday (25038) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Why yes - I mean look at you.


1 points by SmeggitySpooge (32) 7 minutes ago

Even pigs can be educated to sing. ↥like ↧dislike reply permalink


Good point Troll. Thanks for playing. Please come again.

[-] -2 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

I'm too good to be true, you can't take your eyes off of me.....

YOU LOVE ME BAAAAABY and if it's quite alright you need me baaaaby...

I love me too!

;-)

[-] 1 points by GirlFriday (17435) 2 years ago

reaclas No Profile Information

Private Messages

send message

reaclas said 1 minute ago at March 5, 2012, 9:01 a.m. EST (delete) Looks like your poor little knee grow boy will not get reelected hehehehehehehe

Information

Joined March 4, 2012

[-] 3 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

It means no regs and lower taxes for business and more regs and a brand new tax on vaginas, of course! ;-)

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Didn't Rome do that?

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Man, facts you gotta love that Fox News, right? I mean they keep putting this stuff out there and beating on it like it's a drum day after day and pretty soon the audience starts to believe it. The audience consists of people who believe that what they're seeing and being told is the truth. So if and when Fox says "Iran has a nuclear and it's time for the US to do something about that. We must help our friends in Israel protect themselves against this weapon" It'll be perceived as truth.

As we know, the Florida State Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling that Fox was under no legal obligation to tell the truth. Facts, you no doubt aware of this, but I post this link for the benefit of others reading this thread.

http://www.ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html

[-] 1 points by Chris77 (3) 2 years ago

Well do not delude yourself into thinking that ANY other news source is under that obligation either.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

You're absolutely right about that Chris. It's extremely difficult to get the unvarished truth these days. That's the big up-side of nearly everyone carrying something that will record events as they transpire. If we see the same thing occur in several independent vids, we may be reasonably sure of the informations correctness.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I do remember this, like I was telling Friday, they just do what they want, then call it something that sounds good. Like "Patriot Act" then FOX repeats it over and over.

[-] 2 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

Yea, The USAPatriot Act - what an oxymorom that is! How do they come up with those names? "In the name of safety and national security, we're subjecting you to unwarranted search and seizure. It's for your own good. Trust us. We know what we're doing."

When we started taking away rights of citizens and shredding the Constitution the terrorists won that battle. Sorry, but that's how I see it. No guts to stand, as citizen-soldiers, and fight for ourselves?.

I say this all the time: we have to be willing to stand up for the founding principles of this nation and fight for the freedoms we (supposedly) enjoy(ed).

Are we more interested in just staying alive than we are in fighting, and yes even dying, for our own standards.

You know the old saying: "If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything." Well, I think that Occupiers are the ones willing to stand for something and that's why I'm here. This movement is filled with people with heart, courage, conviction and brains. I may not agree with every tactic but the mission is one that I see as being right and just.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (25038) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

For the Good of All we unite.

Stand-up Speak-up stand-up for your rights.

Unite in common cause for the health and prosperity of All.

[-] 1 points by ThunderclapNewman (1083) from Nanty Glo, PA 2 years ago

In light of our discussion of the Patriot Act further down in the thread how about if the government calls the bill to regulate and tax vaginas "The American Procreative Love Act? (TAPLA)"... or should it be "The USAVaginas for Peace act (USAVP)"..."National Ovarian Legislation Of Vaginal Empowerment" act (aka the NO LOVE act)?"

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Careful now if you give this thing a good name, it will be a law next year, that seems to be how it works anyway.

[-] 2 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

You are exactly right. EVeryone wants government to do the things they are interested in.......and that is whether they are republican, democrat, conservative, liberal. are you just now realizing this and surely you don't see that as a characteristic of just an "R". and stop watching faux.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Some are more honest than others, the Rs seem to always be lying saying they want small government but working to reach ever father into our lives.

[-] 1 points by fairforall (279) 2 years ago

then stop watching msnbc.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

you might of noticed this was on FOX

[-] 2 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Totally agree with you Factsrfun. I've lived during an era where there was more government regulation ( prior to Reagan) and although we were slower than most countries to approve certain technologies, foods or medicines, there was a much higher confidence in the American people that we could ' trust' our government to protect the people, not big business. But, when Reagan deregulated he did so to reduce the corporate expense of having to comply with the independently regulated standards- freeing up money to reinvest in the economy. Big corps will tell you that it's government regulation that drives up the costs of their goods...like oil, medicines, etc.. but that's an illusion since corps regulate themselves mostly via government agencies that are being paid for/bribed by the corps.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Good morning Gilliam, thanks for stopping by, I believe I am following you, I have a background in the nuclear industry and there I did see how the industry controlled the regulators, wherever anything happen the top guys were never held to answer, they just got rid of the underlining and paid the fine with company money, then gave themselves another raise. Then when the regulator gets his government pension secured, he goes to work for the industry, telling the new regulator about the great opportunities that are available for the right people.

[-] 3 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

That's right. I worked in the environmental field- specifically, compliance monitoring for very large corps. I left my profession full time just at the cusp when the big corps were hiring me to train their own employees. Of course, I knew what they were doing. BTW, one of my clients was a big nuclear group, B&W, and I once spent months on their site conducting studies. I would bet that they are conducting their own today. FDA employees go to work for the pharmaceutical companies all the time, EPA employees go to work for big oil, big nuclear, etc... I personally, could never do that but then I wasn't so ethically insulated from the real world like a lot of my peers chose to be.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I think life is hard, and each person makes choices along the way, I hope that by honest discussion of the real world we can bring pressure to impose real rules that will allow us to feel that the government is our tool we use to build the country not a weapon held over the heads of it's citizens backed by ever increasing prison populations.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Wouldn't that just be wonderful if indeed our government worked for us, by us and with the explicit goal of protecting us? It's so easy to get caught up in the rat trap and not even know it because companies are so large with so many specialized divisions. Wendell Potter admits that it was easy for him to ignore the reality of the healthcare in the USA because he was just a bean counter in a sealed office and his job was to only review the bottom line while ignoring the process. It wasn't until he stepped out of his insulated office and saw what his industry was or wasn't doing for us that he realized how corrupted and detrimental his profession was to the welfare of Americans. At least he woke up and decided to do something about it. In my opinion, we all make mistakes but it's how we rectify them that shows a person's true character. BTW, like Wendell, I became a whistle blower too. Except that I was not nearing retirement and I was very naive and just assumed that everyone in my field would be supportive. WRONG!!!! and boy did I ever pay dearly. Would i do it again? Yes but I would be smarter about how I did it so as to protect myself better. Live and learn.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thank you we need heroes.

Perkins, the economic hit man, is a good read, people who come outside from inside can tell the most important truths, I admit I will have to read a bit about Wendell, my memory needs a kick start from time to time,

I faced a choice once, and took the path that saved the families of people I worked with, the NRC is so in bed it would not have matter anyway, they did not need me to point out the obvious

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

The important thing is that we always do what is right in the face of adversity. It's never easy to do the right thing..if it were easy, everyone would be doing it and we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today. I have a particular affinity for Wendell Potter because it was when he visited one of the most economically depressed towns in America during one of their health fairs, that his life changed forever. That town just happens to be where my family is from in Appalachia. There's no excuse for anyone in America to suffer like those hard-working folks do. The videos relating to that fair are heart-breaking. If you read Potter's book, Deadly Spin, you'll learn a lot about healthcare and insurance corruption and I do recommend reading it for your own protection. Thanks for the recomendation on Perkins.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I grew up in Gatlinburg, sur-real that was, what part of the mountain?

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Really? hahahhaha Gatlinburg isn't so bad though being those beautiful smokies. .isn't Dollywood there? hahahha .. I never appreciated mountain culture as a youngster but ironically, I research it today. Funny how that works. I'm also a fiddler and play traditional music. My family is from Wise, VA and the surrounding areas, Harlan,KY and Hawkins and Kingsport, TN. I actually grew up in the northern Blueridge mountains.. in Bluemont. When I first moved there as a youngster, the town was so backwoods and seriously archaic. There were lynchings, moonshiners and true mountain folk culture that believed in aliens and other far out things. It was rather frightening for me given that I had lived in a big city until 3rd grade. I must admit though that I had one of the best childhoods in those mountains. My friends and I would hike, rappel, canoe down the river, safely hitch-hike. It was definitely a wholesome experience that contributed to my appreciation for the environment and I later became a Biologist.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

My ex was from the Tri-City area, my great-great-great-great or there abouts father settled the hollow I grew up in, he was buried there around 1848 if I remember right. I ended up doing nuclear power after visiting Oak Ridge when I was 12 or so.

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

I really wish I could move back to the mountains in a nice quiet hollow where people are several miles away from me. I'm very happy being in nature without the hustle and bustle of humanoids. I almost married a guy who was in the nuclear industry. He traveled quite a bit during his internships. I don't know where he ended up but he had to leave here due to over-exposure and was sent to Minnesota. I was so heartbroken and I don't think I really ever recovered from that. When I was working at B&W, I had to wear a badge and when my levels exceeded a certain range, I had to leave and was not allowed to return. This could explain why I am so weird today...hahahha

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

hate to say it but B&W were known to be dirty plants, they use boiling water don't they, spreads a lot of hot stuff

[-] 1 points by Gillian (1842) 2 years ago

Yeah and I'm not really familiar with all that mysterious stuff but one night, very late one night, I had to find some help lifting a lid off of a HUGE holding tank and I accidentally walked into a big room with a bunch of guys in white suits that were watching some glowing liquid fall through the ceiling into the floor and when they saw me, they immediately had me removed and cleaned. It was so freaking scary.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You wandered into a containmented zone, they hadn't set their field? oh man, if people only knew how much we need good government if we're going to let people play with stuff like nuclear fuel.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I can embrace a lot, but not government in my bed or telling my Dr. what treatment he can give me.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

bout says it all

[-] 1 points by RayLansing (99) 2 years ago

All of what you said is true. I'd like to add that they also want less regulation so they can defraud others more easily.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The fraud takes the form of economic fraud as well as environmental, even governmental.

Where they take the tax dollars intended for the betterment of the community and funnel it into their pockets with backroom deals. Like the one that put Halliburton in control of no-bid contracts, which weren’t worth much, till we went to war of course then the stock went through the roof.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Excepting for Ron Paul no Republican (and virtually no elected Democrat for that matter) wants to dismantle the American military establishment, which is roughly half the federal budget and more responsible than any other expenditure for the extension of the power of the state.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Ron Paul would turn the entire country over to the corporations he has a vision for America where it is ruled entirely by inherited wealth, wealth whose power has no limit.

If rules were imposed on corporations, such as the requirement that their workforce be unionize, we might be able to cut back other places, but to just give up on democracy and go back to monarchy where force is wielded through corporations would be a terrible outcome.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I've been a labor activist for nearly 50 years and perhaps it is the way it is framed but requiring a work force to be unionized would be as undemocratic as circumscribing concerted collective activity on the part of working people (the legal definition of a labor union in labor law). Unions are about creating some small measure of democracy in the work place. Requiring a corporation to accept the concerted collective activity of its work force is one thing. Requiring individuals in that work force to join an organization against their will is quite another and IMHO not at all consistent with the spirit of democratic collective activity.

By law unions with collective bargaining agreements are required to represent all workers covered by such an agreement whether or not those workers choose to belong to that organization. In return for that required service, as a quid pro quo, workers covered under such an agreement are required to at least pay an agency fee, which covers only the expenses of the union that represents them, but not any of the other costs associated with the operation of the union or its other activities which they can choose to do or not as is their democratic right. Of course active union members are expected to pay dues for the maintenance of the organization as they would for any voluntary organization to which they belonged,

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Like anything you wouldn't have to work someplace or join a union or buy shares in a corporation these are all choices.

I would think that a change as large as I am suggesting would include other changes in details.

I am speaking to Ron Paul's basic concept that all power in society should be transferred to corporations I don't think that is a good idea at all.

I prefer a combination of labor laws and EPA laws and such, I’m just saying that if you go with the virtual zero government of a Ron Paul and do nothing about the power of corporations, which he doesn’t, is to turn the country over to corporations. My mandatory union idea is just a possible way to make a bad idea (Ron Paul) possibly work.

Please if you find fault with it please consider it in a Ron Paul world.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

I think you are 100% on target.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Thank you, and thanks for stopping by, hey I live in the city with horses all around me, can you believe that? saw somebody riding up the sidewalk a couple of days ago.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

I live in the country play with horses all day long.Best of luck.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I sure not saying the city is better or anything, but when I moved here to west Phoenix, I was surprised to see horses right on the city's edge, I can see them on a borading ranch right out my kitchen window, when the weather is nice they start running and playing, anyway it was unexpected. Nothing like being out on the land though, I grew up in the SE mountains. Keep the faith.

[-] 1 points by freehorseman (267) from Miles City, Mt 2 years ago

Sounds like the best of both worlds

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

hey this is in your neck of the woods have you seen this?

http://occupywallst.org/forum/another-hater-asking-for-public-attention-lets-hel/

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

Someone's gotta make sure you don't watch the wrong kinds of porn or do drugs either.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The list and the size of that "limited" government just keeps growing

[-] 1 points by shield (222) 2 years ago

:P

My post was sarcasm. You're point is correct though. The fault is that of the modern American people, who have never successfully decided to take an approach consisting of their insistence that their government bow before them, as the founding fathers did.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

In Arizona we have limited direct democracy through our proportions. Our biggest problem is that we have so many “fans” of the GOP, people who pay no attention to what their team actually does, but vote for them anyway. The people here vote for MMJ, the GOP gives us SB 1070, and they are considering making women get permission from their employers before they can have sex, or they can be fired. The GOP sees no limit to what an employer can demand I guess. So yeah as long as we keep letting republicans get elected we get what we get.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

We are the 99%. That includes Republicans. Please think harder about what we have in common. The parties try to make it seem like there is a big difference but Obama is president and: Is gay marriage legal? Is abortion illegal? Anywhere? Didn't he just pass a sweeping healthcare overhaul that will decide what medical procedures you can have or not (rather that your insurance company-yeah I know that was sooo much better)? Katherine Sebelious thinks teenage girls should be forced to take birth control and as a former worker for DHHS, we are not allowed to encourage consumption of organic foods-or even fresh (whole) foods over processed foods if they meet government standards to be "healthful." Why is the government still so interested in what you do the bedroom and promoting Frankenfood under a Democratic administration.
Have the wars ended or expanded?

The parties are basically the same. Both fascists.

But to answer your question: "limited government" means something akin to: I believe it is still 1980 and I am Ronald Reagan. We are fighting the Cold War, so we can't cut the Defense budget. In fact, I'm going to increase it to starve the Russians. The Johnson Era social reforms are failing so we need to cut those. I'm against anymore social spending clearly because we have so much. It's a delusion many Republicans suffer from. Amnesia I suppose.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Look I welcome all republicans willing to raise taxes on the wealthy; I just haven’t been able to find any. When you stand firm to the position that there are times when you cut taxes, but there is never a time when you raise taxes, then you are someone that leads to destruction. If you go to the doctor with a fever and he lowers your temp to 92, and plans to keep on going, get out of there before he kills you, Americas have to let the Republicans go before they kill us.

[-] 1 points by BullMooseman (7) from Roseland, NJ 2 years ago

Well I don't know what he means by limited government but what I want is to return back to the constitution meaning the removal of these departments/programs. Welfare, Medicade, Social Security, Department of Education, Agriculture, Energy, Labor, Transportation, Homeland security, Health and Human Services, civil works, National Science Foundation, and Corporation for national security. EPA, and foreign aid. Now some of these such as education would go back to the states and local governments where it belongs. I'm also debating whether or not go give the right to regulate to the states seeing as the Federal Government abuses that power.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So this would include the disbanding of all corporations too? A little mano on mano capitalism, might work and you missed Dept. of Defense, I mean come on? a standing army what could be a greater threat to freedom than that? Oh and the federal prison system, for that matter why not close all the courts?

[-] 1 points by BullMooseman (7) from Roseland, NJ 2 years ago

Closing the courts is silly and you know that. Why would I disband Corporations? They are private entities not part of government if they violate rights then they should be punished. I would not get rid of the department of defense because who would defend our liberties from enemies foreign and domestic?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Have you ever heard of militia do you know how many guns we have?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Corporations are created by the government with their rules, if your reworking government and losing another even more out of control force then that's crazy, and closing the courts is no more silly than many of the things you want to close.

[-] 1 points by BullMooseman (7) from Roseland, NJ 2 years ago

I would get rid of all those things because they are allowed in the constitution!. The courts are allowed, so are corporations. So those programs and departments are silly for even being in existence.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Oh and I didn't realize that I was chatting with a Supreme Court Justice since their the only ones that get to say what the Constitution says, after all that's how W became President. My read of the Constitution would say that the states are respondible to count their votes, but they didn’t see it that way.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

All those things you want to close are allowed under the interstate commerce section of the Constitution, which is the same section that allows for corporations, if you reinterpret the Constitution to say that it does not allow for the E.P.A. for instance, then it also does not allow for corporations.

[-] 1 points by rayl (1007) 2 years ago

americans in general are poorly informed, not just the fox news viewers. in europe people are appalled by how little americans know about what goes on in the world and what the american government is doing in the world.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

True, FOX is just the worst of a bad bunch.

[Removed]

[-] 1 points by grapes (3312) 2 years ago

Yes, in my opinion, the Europeans are CORRECT in their views of many U.S. citizens' concern or interest. However, the Europeans also contributed to our parochialism due to their tendencies to talk about what the U.S. is doing. It gets boring after a while for me to go international and ends up staring at my own country's navel. There is much spin in our news and Fox News is one of the worst offenders. They choose to interweave opinions with news to stir up emotions. The old saying goes, "Blinded by rage," is often true indeed. The emotions cloud out the thinking part of our brains. It is insidious but the ones lesser informed about psychological warfare operations take the bait wholeheartedly and regurgitate the nonsense without much thinking, like Pavlov's conditioned reflex research subjects.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

he met people should be in direct control of the civilization they live in

that rules should not be\ handed down by organizations determining our jobs and work hours

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If by "people" you mean employer you might be right, they do want to empower the employer.

Still the Rs seem to expand the power, reach, and size of government wherever it is limiting the freedom of individuals, including in conflicts between employers and individuals, and I distinguish between the two because most employers (as defined by numbers of people employed) are collective capital organizations not individuals. Conservatives are for the expansion of government in all sorts of ways, asIi said, defense, prisons, mandating commutation between doctors and patients, so when they say they want “more limited” government, it is most accurate to remember they are saying they want more “limited government” and they want to limit that governments power to do anything to imporve people’s lives such as clean air/water decent wages.

[-] 1 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

D A N G E R
listening to fox has been proven to cause brain atrophy

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

true, someone already noticed how it affected my spelling....

[-] -1 points by reaclas (-1) 2 years ago

75% of the population must have brain atrophy eh libtard!!!!!! bwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

[-] 0 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

The truth hurts!


The PublicMind poll by Farleigh Dickinson University @ in New Jersey showed that of all the news channels out there, Fox News viewers are the least informed.

People were asked questions about news habits and current events in a statewide poll of 600 New Jersey residents. Results showed that viewers of Sunday morning news shows were the most informed about current events, while Fox News viewers were the least informed. In fact, FDU poll results showed they were even less informed than those who say they don’t watch any news at all and they were also less likely than any other group analyzed to have forms of higher education. Readers of The New York Times, USA Today and listeners to National Public Radio were better informed about international events than other media outlets.

In one major example, New Jersey poll participants were questioned about the outcome of the so-called Arab Spring uprisings in North Africa earlier in the year. Non-Fox News viewer statistics showed 53% know that Egyptians were successful in overthrowing dictator Mubarak.
48% know that the Syrian uprising has thus far been unsuccessful in ousting Assad. But Fox News viewers showed 37% know that Egyptians overthrew their government 42% know that Syrians have not yet overthrown their government thus suggesting a daily dose of sound bytes from CNN at the gym, and headlines from Google News were enough to surpass what average Fox viewers knew about current events.

“Because of the controls for partisanship, we know these results are not just driven by Republicans or other groups being more likely to watch Fox News,” said Dan Cassino, a professor of political science at Fairleigh Dickinson and an analyst for the PublicMind Poll. “The results clearly prove that there is something about watching Fox News that fundamentally leads people to be mis-informed – even compared to those who don’t watch any news at all.”

This isn't the first study that has found that Fox News viewers more misinformed in comparison to others. Last year, a study from the University of Maryland found that Fox News viewers were more likely to believe lies and false information about politics and world events.

[-] 1 points by RedSkyMorning (220) 2 years ago

A man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers. -Mark Twain (Ahhhh, the internet is attributing this to Thomas Jefferson. WTF?)

[-] 0 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

I'll keep my eye out for fox posts and put them under celebrity

[-] -2 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

I see ZenDogII is present today.

I'm saving a special place in republican hell for special types like you.

I'll own you sooner than later, too.

[-] 3 points by bensdad (8977) 2 years ago

Anytime I can stand with ZenDog, I stand proud

[-] -1 points by SatanRepublican (136) 2 years ago

I look forward to having both of you.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

(R)epelican'ts are responsible for creating the largest government we've ever known.

They, like FLAKESnews itself, are the biggest liars this nation has ever known.

enjoy.......:)

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Good morning shooz, It is the classic switch-a-roo they pull, I am always amazed that the same people fell for it, it reminds me of Lucy and the football.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

They only support smaller government when there are democrats around.

When they're in power, it's anything goes.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Yeah "free speech zones" for crying out loud, as someone who was stuck in one, I can tell you nothing about it felt "free".

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

What's a "free speech zone"?

Or should I google?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Maybe I should to make sure got the name right, back when Bush was in and people starting getting worked up about the war, he set areas where you had to stand if you were protesting his speech, out of sight of the crowd or of course the President, don't know how long they lasted, but I got stuck in one when he was here for a speech. (with lots of other people of course)

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (25038) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

That is when there is an event usually political and perhaps about a highly charged issue.

Well instead of having noisy and chaotic protesters right out in front or along a parade route. The officials of the event helpfully designate an area where protesters can gather.

Usually well away from the event or the route to the event. Who says we don't have free speech.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Kind of like a "reservation" for the truth.........:)

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (25038) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Kind of. If you mean they are trying to reserve the right for themselves - Well then Absolutely.

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Very True! There are no, and have never been any, corrupt democrats!

Democrats are indeed the only force of good and even a small handful of Republicans are always able to control a large majority of Democrats.

Evil is inexplicably powerful.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

(R)epelican'ts are indeed inexplicably evil.

At least you got one thing correct.

To bad it wasn't a response to what was posted, in any way shape or form.

Comprehension difficulties run rampant, in (R)epelican't voters. .

[-] 0 points by HoarFriday (27) 2 years ago

Yeah, democrats never have any part of any evil unless them republicans make them do it.

I saw ONE SINGLE republican campaigner make 12 democratic senators eat dirt by merely commanding them to do so. Honest.

I've been so glad to have it explained to me here how all the fascist stuff Obama has signed, that blasted right through the democratic congress, (also against their will) over selected holidays have been simply because the Republicans forced him to every time.

Of course what I posted was in direct response to what you posted. You must be a republican voter and don't even know what you post, much less what IS INDEED a direct response to it.

You have a bad case of Alzheimer there, decrepit curmudgeon.

I bet you lay back all day in a worn out leather chair that smells like stale urine and raunchy old man open ass.

[-] 0 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

anti-facts on one side and self defeating arrogance on the other side. Perfect match.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Feeling grumpy today richard?

I do find that most of what the (R)epelican'ts have done to my country to be evil.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

I totally sympathize with you. I do, I cook for a living and every now and then, sell some web work. I know full and well who caused what. But I also know that you have to look past some things in certain places to reach your goal, any goal. It's called sacrifice. In this case it could even be seen as noble or mature. There are plain everyday people that choose a party without understanding it or the other party, and in many cases it's like religion in that people go with what they know (how they were raised). Do you not have one friend or relative that speaks from the other side of the isle and realize it's because they are poorly or wrongly informed? Not that you assume, but that they were in fact dead wrong? Do you think it possible that you yourself may have done it yourself at least once in your life? Then let me add to that, more important than having any party on your side, is having actual human beings on your side? As long as you follow the divide, you will strengthen it. You want ideas on your side, or people? On this forum you act as the face of Occupy. You may be the first person a new user encounters, their support could hinge on your ability to not alienate them. That may sound like overkill or too heavy, but thats my view of it.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I've been here for a while now richard, and I've found that folks with usernames chosen to insult other users, are not here for any level of understanding.

Quite the opposite.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 2 years ago

lol, so because you aren't talking directly to someone when they hit the forum, they can't read what you wrote? I can't see you so you can't see me? How else do people interact on a forum if not by replying to a comment (like you about a republican) or directly to a post (like one you make about republicans)? If they came here looking for an alternative to the tea party, your post would ensure they remain supportive to the tea party. Now I don't care either way because I have nothing against other Americans. But you do seem the type that you would rather their support dwindles while Occupies grows. Correct? I don't like the idea of dems using Occupy to blanket justify anything they do because we are just a pro-Obama party. I'm not here supporting Obama, I'm here to support the working class (myself). I voted for him but I don't want this to be a rubber stamp for him. Make sense?

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

You say that as if a username like hoarfriday, or penisfine, won't do the same thing.

I'm just being honest when I say I have no love of the (R)epelican't positions, and that includes teabaggers. They did raise my taxes after all......

I've found they have a problem with that one simple truth.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

good morning shooz, don't know if you have met richard before but he is a 1% troll sent here to make sure we do nothing, just thought you would like to know, if you didn't

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Yeah! The democrats have been working for four years to reverse all the expansions of government! They're not even half done!

Cheers Shooz, keep up the good work!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

Are you being sarcastic?

It's unlikely any party will make it significantly smaller.

(R)epelican'ts, however have the precedent of BIG government.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

What? No. Obama has scaled down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Obama is pledging to reduce government by consolidating federal agencies over the coming years. I don't think the Democrats are the party of big government, why would that be sarcasm?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 2 years ago

I guess you have more faith in that, than I do.

I don't really "trust" any of them.

[-] 1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Yeah, Obama is the only one worth any of our trust. I can't think of any thing I really have against him.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It is tough to know who to trust Santorum or Obama.

I think I will stick with Obama though, seeing how Santorum wants to outlaw contraception and all.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

He probably does... but when did he say that?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

It was all over his face when he was talking about how as long as the supreme court says that contraception is "legal".

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Isn't that the same logic right wing nutjobs use to claim Obama is a gun grabbing socialist?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You mean he's not, them guns cause a lot of trouble, remember Tucson?

Actually I've never seen him roll his eyes about the court letting people have guns, could you remind me of that?

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

I didn't say he was, I said it's the same logic right wingers use.

I seem to remember him letting his judgement slip and he referred to people being "bitter", and "clinging to guns and religion". One of the most regrettable statements I remember hearing him make.

Wait, guns cause crime? How is the national violent crime rate plummeting as the level of guns in the country reaching a 30 year high? I believe in sensible and common sense gun control, such as the assault weapons ban and virtual elimination on handguns and long guns, but it undermines principled gun control advocacy when well-meaning people make statements like "guns cause crime".

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Believe you, me I know me, some bitter people with guns.

Or do we fault people for letting the truth slip out like Santorum did about wanting to make contraception illegal? I guess that’s his truth and we should consider it.

I hear what your saying about guns our murder rate is a lot lower than Canada's, wait a minute, not sure if that's true.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

People aren't more likely to die from catastrophic injuries here, because universal emergency care is mandated. The long-term conditions are what claim the most lives in our current health system. But the topic was guns.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You haven't been in an emergency room lately, have you? They send people away all the time.

The topic is how republicans want this huge government that can stick it’s nose into every personal decision in your life, remember?

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Yeah. It still doesn't mean anything. Britain's violent crime rate is four times higher than ours, and their gun policies are similar to Canada's, which has half as much violent crime as Britain. These things don't mean anything.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

What withtheir madical care at least theinjured can see a doctor, don't think their murder rate is near ours.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Not sure about murder rate specifically, but the violent crime rate, sexual assault rate, and assault rates are >100% higher than in the US. I addition, property crime rates are similar:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/011218/dq011218b-eng.htm

But of course none of this proves that gun control causes crime, just as Japan's violent crime rate doesn't prove that gun control prevents crime. Cultural factors are of utmost importance when it comes to crime rates, and laws tend to have not nearly as significant of an effect. To say that guns cause crime is a ridiculous oversimplification, (although it is obvious you weren't saying that,) but gun control efforts and advocacy campaigns such as mine need to emphasize this or else we quickly fall into the stereotype of "gun grabbin' fashist!"

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I know that's why I like to look more at Canada more so than Japan, not so many differences, seein' how they are even more of a "wild west" sort of place than the USA.

[-] 1 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

Yeah, they are hypocrites who do not understand the true meaning of limited government.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Hey good morning, thanks for stopping by juan.

[-] 0 points by JuanFenito (847) 2 years ago

No problem, same to you sir.

[-] 0 points by Chris77 (3) 2 years ago

Actually what he meant was that he doesn't believe that government should have as much control over people's lives. A large and overreaching government needs to justify its existance. So it creates more responsibilities for itself. As these responsibilities get ever larger these agencies encroach more and more into daily life

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

The republicans I see all want the government to control what goes on in your doctors office, that's pretty far reaching if you ask me.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

So what? I just heard some D on MSNBC talking about how great Obama, the Commander in Chief of American Imperialism and American corporatism is. What does any of that have to do with OWS. As the home page of this web site says, we don't need politicians to build a better world. I don't see what any politicians and particularly corporate politicians (which is to say virtually every elected official in the nation) have to do with the OWS project of building a better world without them.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If your intent is to destroy the Constitution then I don’t stand with you, I don’t see that on the front page, and I don’t think that has wide support among the 99%. Therefore people will be in office, those people will make decisions, and they only listen to you if you can threaten their job. You cannot threaten their job without voting in an uniform matter. In order to know who supports our ideas and who opposes them we must watch them and make choices.

If we want to be ignored, we should not get involved.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

What the home page of this web site does say is that we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians to build a better world. What are we to make of that? It could be post Constitutional or perhaps not, but it does seem to me that given that it is what is posted on the home page of this website that that is the appropriate starting place for any discussion here.

Are you familiar with Beard's Economic Interpretation of the Constitution? It's an old chestnut and in some dispute, but he amasses a lot of evidence to conclude that the Constitution was a reactionary document and the most radically democratic personalities involved in the Revolution refused to attend the Constitutional Convention because the saw it as a reactionary anti-revolutionary gathering. That group of oppositionists included Jefferson, Patrick Henry, Sam Adams (not John), and Tom Paine. My point here is that the Constitution was not handed down from Sinai by Moses. It is a human invention of human beings and as such is subject to all the failings of human beings.

I certainly support the Bill of Rights but the fact is they were added to the Constitution as a kind of after thought in order to get the thing passed. As for the body of the document, much of the Federalist Papers are devoted to arguing specifically that the Constitution is NOT a democratic document and discussing the pitfalls of democracy. Personally I find some aspects of the Constitution quite problematic and certainly undemocratic, for example bicameralism and an independent executive.

On the other hand, right now Congress and the Court seem quite willing to run rough shod over the Constitution and nobody or no institution seems to have the will to stop it. Only two federal departments are specified in the Constitution. One is the Treasury. The other is the Post Office, yet Congress seems prepared to privatize the Post Office and undoubtedly the Court will do nothing to stop it even though provisions for it exist in the Constitution.

Very clearly the 99% are not yet with OWS. Most of the 99% is probably not even aware of OWS. While OWS has done an outstanding job of outreach given the radical content of its message, it clearly represents a vision that is well beyond the thinking of most of the 99% which remains largely locked in the Democratic and Republican binary. But if you look at the grievances of the Declaration of the Occupation, the only political document that OWS has yet to produce, the resolution of those grievances as I see it, point to a new and very different society than the one in which we now live.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Not sure what I said that you would interrupt as some endorsement of perfection, by the Constitution or anything else, I just said that if it comes to it I would rather have the Constitution than trust some group of people to do better today, no matter what they call themselves.

I firmly believe that if OWS wants to get anything done going forward, it is vital that we make our voices heard this November, if you feel differently; I’m open to what you have to say.

I don’t see OWS as a one sided type of thing I think we will have to fight on all fronts. But that does not mean we need to send people to support the banks every time we have an action against them. We can pick a side, when we can see that one is better.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I completely agree. While it is possible (and important) to imagine a more democratic document than the present Constitution and even imagine that some day we might have such a document, given the conservative mood of the nation, especially on social issues, a Constitutional Convention today would probably produce a less democratic document than a more democratic document.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I have said other places, that I would not support a Constitutional Convention even if I were a member, I don't trust myself that much let alone someone else. Now it took me a few years to get there, so understand those who feel they could do better, so do I. Can't explain it here like I said it took a few years.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You know what Red we have found a point of agreement. I think that's a good thing, and I think you see where I'm coming from on these other things and I you and that's OK.

Now if you think I'm weak because I think we should all vote, and yes I think those votes should be for D's, I will say this:

Al Franken thought he was a liberal till he met me then he discovered he was a moderate.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I am 69 years old and I have voted in every election since I was legally allow. While it does make me feel good, so did taking communion when I was a Christian, but I don't think there is much consequence to those acts in either case.

As I've pointed out previously, exactly how important is what Barak Obama does in a voting booth every November? It's undoubtedly the least consequential thing he does politically. You could say the same thing of every campaign operative. IMHO I think the same is true of any political activist. That is especially true of any OWS activist. I think what they do every other day of the year is far more important than what they do on election day, which is, by no means, to say that they should not vote, though ultimately that is a personal, existential choice and not really a political choice and even the most superficial understanding of statistics and probability would demonstrate to anyone.

Ultimately national elections are determined by a couple of thousand people in about 4 counties and I suppose a case could be made that voting is a poltically consequential act for those folks. Among other things we vote on a state basis, not nationally and most states are simply not in play. In fact, even most counties, wards and precincts in most swing states are not in play.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So you vote and you think that by voting as a block we can do nothing?

I do disagree; I think we have a protected and vital action, that of voting, if we don't do that we may as well do nothing at all, for all the good the rest will do.

If we turn out in large numbers, vote as a block against the GOP, we could cause some unexpected results.

Unexpected results get TV cameras.

Do I have to go on?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I am active in OWS, but I have no illusions about its relative strength, which is inconsequential. As a bloc, especially as a voting bloc it means nothing, though I do think it has somewhat more consequece in terms of its direct action activiites, mostly to the extent of their visibility and thus as recruiting tools (for better or worse even bad publicity is better than no publicity).

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Grover Norquist is only one person, look at all the harm he’s done.

Do you not think truth can be as strong?

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Noble sentiments are one thing and important. Social movements, on the other and can vary considerable in strength and influence and this one, this movement called Occupy Wall Street, this movement which I am totally devoted to and which I think is the last best hope of America and perhaps the world is, in this person's humble opinion, pathetically weak despite the illusions of many of its adherents and really not capable of doing much beyond symbolic actions and building itself which again in this person's humble opinion ought to be its primary project. Once we have serious occupation in a substantial number of county seats (say 20 to 30 million people occupying) then we can talk about a next step. That may seem unrealistic and perhaps it is, but IMHO the alternative is the advance of police states internationally at varying paces.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If you don't think we can get 20 million to vote, certainly enough to make huige changes how do you ever hope to get 20 million out in support?

Sorry that you feel we are so weak. All we really do is make a few National level people lose that thought they would win and we make huge strides toward our goal.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

I'm not talking about getting 20 million people to vote. Read the home page of this web site for goodness sake. Read the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City. Go to a General Assembly. Know something about the movement you claim to support or at least the web site you are active on.

It says on the home page of this web site that we don't need Wall Street and we don't need politicians to build a better world and it calls for a general assembly in every back yard. That doesn't sound to me like it has anything to do with voting. Whatever you are to make of it, it seems to me that that ought to be the starting point of any discussion here. Perhaps a walk back to the Democratic Party is appropriate, but a walk back to the Democratic Party from the premises of this web site it seems to me would be a very very long walk indeed.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

sure i guess OWS could be just a bunch of people who like to camp in parks, too bad for the 1% and the GOP it is a lot more than that

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

And a President Gore would of done the same things a President Bush did, I don't think so. Right both of them 1% but guess what, there are good people even in the 1%.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

It's not about good and bad people, or people of good or bad character. It is about a fundamentally flawed social system which commodifies everything to the extent that even the best people are left with nothing but the most evil of choices.

A President Obama has extended the American empire, has turned assasination into an instrument of US policy, has limited our civil liberties and has turned his back on the people who elected him, has put Goldman Sachs in charge of our financial system, has but Chicago machine politicians in charge of domestic policies and has put Cintonites in charge of foreign policy.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Of course your not, you don't want them to vote, if they did the 1% would be in real trouble.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

Both major political parties are the parties of the 1%. The so-called "third parties" rarely get more than 1 or 2% of the vote. Therefore, whomever you vote for, the 1% wins. That, of course, is no reason not to vote. It can be an important organizing tool, though most of the time it is little more than an existential moment.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Well that's all noble and all, but me; I'm hardcore.

I certainly don’t think the Democrats are perfect, as a matter of fact I think the Republicans are almost perfect. Perfectly bad.

I have been watching this stuff closely for over 30 years, and if every American don’t pull their heads out of the sand thinking they are “about the same” we are doomed that is exactly what the 1% want you to believe. If we were in 1960’s looking at a Covair and a Mercedes you could talk about how they both have tires and a motor, and i could point out that one of them will kill you. Nader was once a truth teller, the guy who would tell you that one would kill you, but when he wanted power he became one of the they’re about same guys, why don’t you buy the Covair it looks cool.

[-] 0 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 2 years ago

It may even be the case that OWS and the Democratic Party are on parallel paths (though given the fact that the Democratic Party is in control of the executive branch of the organizers of American imperialism and American capitalism, personally I don't think so). But even if they are parallel paths, they are parallel paths. Electoral politics is one thing (any electoral politics), Occupy Wall Street quite another.

[-] 0 points by DumbDick (4) 2 years ago

I am twelve and what is limited government?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If done properly it would be limited to protecting the individual from bullies in the society like big bad corporations which try to steal your life for their profit, and the limited government would limit their ability to do that.

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

that sounds like the whole crew in DC, of course we know that the "D's" are the only ones with honor in DC and would never go along with the game or sign off on anything that benefited only them, down-sizing or otherwise.

Pelosi for President!

[-] 3 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Nobody’s perfect, but that doesn’t mean they got to be the devil.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/republicans-try-to-kill-public-financing-in-arizon/

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

Splain to me exactly how they are not all one and the same.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

If you can't see a difference between the Rs and Ds then I'm not sure you could tell the difference between a good plan and a bad one, but I'll hang out and see what you got to say.

[-] 0 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

I watch what they sign off on, don't you?

Both are evil and have lasted long past any usefulness to the greater good of this nation.

I doubt you'll have anything useful to add to this.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

You watch yet you have no recollection, like some sort of bot or something, why, ok the Ds want to raise taxes the Rs don't raising taxes is better than cutting retirement for working class therfore Ds better than Rs.

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

If the devil offered you a better deal than satan, are you going to look either gift horse in the mouth?

Let's quit pretending the entire system of corporate governance isn't badly broken and actually use some common sense.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Again you get back not being able to tell the difference, we all know you're just here for the GOP, you want us to do nothing so you and the GOP and the 1% win, you offer no reason we should allow any republican to be in public office, yet you claim that's exactly what we should do. I offer a difference you ignore it, anyone fooled by you, will be fooled by anything.

[-] -1 points by SmeggitySpooge (78) 2 years ago

I only see you offering your insistence that I support any of the corporate system of governance, bi-party or otherwise, and any of their predatory acts and assaults on our long since deceased democratic republic starting over 100 years ago.

The best I can tell, you merely want to band-aid something quite evil that actually is not doing anything other than working exactly as intended.

Fixing something that truly isn't broken is foolish.

It's actually you, and many like you, that cannot see, or refuse to see, reality.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Standing outside spitting on the ground and howelling at the moon....do you really think anybody is fooled by this you 1% lackey.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

It means different things to different people.

It means we don't want any more bailouts of this form;

we don't want the state conjoining itself with our religious element through legislative attempts to forcibly impart belief;

we don't want the Fed denying military benefits to those who come home maimed and dismembered as a result of voluntary service in their wars;

we don't want higher taxes;

it goes one and on...

but basically, we don't want any part of overbearing Federal "governance."

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

and governance should be kept for keeping people from doing what we don't like, such as boys kissing boys and smoking weed...

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Except of course at those times when a woman is visiting her doctor, and of course the empolyee's relgious beliefs don't really matter, only bosses matter. But we will take any tax cut you want to hand out, it's always time to cut taxes, never time to raise them. and what I recall from the rs was when we send working class kids to war, we don't want to hear from them when they get home.

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Americans are overtaxed and there has been no effort whatsoever to lower or curtail spending.

Women right's groups cannot force the Catholic church to fund contraception, emergency contraception, or abortion. In this country, there is this thing of religious "freedom."

And I agree, this administration's continued attack on our veterans, and disabled veterans in particular, is despicable.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

And yet not nearly as effective as the attacks on veterans carried out by the last republican administration and they are even fighting for more benefits but the GOP is fighting all good things

So paying less than 14% on 20 million is overtaxed? OK I understand the 1% got to have their solders too.

No body forces the Catholic Church to charge for their services, if they want to charge then they got to be a business like anybody else but if they want to be a church they are free to provide their services for free with people that don't get paid

[-] -1 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Huh?

Is the Catholic Church a religious institution or is it a business? Where does the money go that the Catholic Church raises? Well, it goes to promulgate the faith. And they do this primarily through care of the poor; money is just the medium.

You are suggesting that a religious institution must provide services for actions which violate their faith.

The Catholic church does not believe in joy sex, they believe in procreation; they do not believe in contraception, let alone emergency contraception.

Real world scenario... Local Catholic hospital, none of its doctors on call are "participating providers." What this means is that they have no contract with the insurance company to provide services at a fixed rate; that portion of the bill that is not met with insurance is then billed to the customer. Currently this unpaid portion of the bill is anywhere from 20 - 50%. The law requires that the customer pay the bill; fail to pay and they attach a lien to our houses; and we lose our homes. If, on the other hand, we are unemployed, a ward of the state, all care is entirely free. In an effort to compensate, the doctors and hospitals are billing their insured customers for that which they are unable to recoup from the illegal and the welfare recipient.

What this legislation does is one of two things: it either drives up the cost of insurance or it reduces benefit. And for who? Who is it that requires contraception, emergency contraception, and abortion? In general, it's not the employed Roman Catholic.

It goes beyond this though... I'm not Catholic and no insurance company has ever paid for my birth control; my wife has never suggested that they should pay for our birth control; why would she?

Those employed by a religious institution should at the very least be amenable to the prevailing belief and practice of that institution, not at odds with it. As the antagonist you will soon find yourself unemployed, and rightly so.

I think the administration's reaction to this issue is despicable and decidedly UN-American. There is a place for those who are UN-American, not amenable to our belief in religious freedom, I'm quite certain. But this place does not exist within our borders.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I didn't say any of the stuff you claim I said, what did say is that no body is forcing the Catholic Church to operate a hospital.

Anyone in the church or the Church itself have every right to choose whether or not they wish to operate any business at all including hospitals.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

Most Catholic hospitals, which you view as a business, began in the mid 19th century as homes for orphans who required medical care. They grew and grew and grew and now they provide many kinds of care. But they were never intended as a "business" nor do they view themselves as a business now.

This is stupidity - ignorance - and religious discrimination.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

So then they have no payroll, and there is no requirement for them under the Healthcare law, problem solved.

[-] 0 points by betuadollar (-313) 2 years ago

I know this is impossible for many people to fathom but for many Christians sexual issues are not "on the table"; they are a nonnegotiable item.

It's almost St Patty's Day; all those people you see out there in Green are Roman Catholic. And the Roman Catholic church believes that sex should only exist for the purpose of procreation and only within marriage; that parents cannot divorce, and that children shall be raised as "good Catholics."

All of this serves to grow the Church; and the Church IS growing.

What you are labeling a business enterprise is labeled by the Church as a charity. Because that, in fact, is what it is.

Separation of Church and State - get Obama's State (and misguided version of Church) out of our Church.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

I'm sorry if I was unclear, I firmly oppose the government forcing anyone to have sex against their will.

Sorry if there was a misunderstanding.

[Removed]

[-] -2 points by Carlitini99 (-167) 2 years ago

you must be able to read minds! i haven't heard anyone say those things except maybe Obama.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Making more sense than useal which of course none at all, you should get a raise. What's got you flustered somebody actually heard what you guys have been saying all along.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (25038) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

I think they should have thought about that before they took the republican party down in flames.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

That's the problem with extremism you just have to get more and more extreme, Truth on the other hand is like money you can never have too much, unless of course your form of government allows you to use that money in such a way to gain advantage in the society at large, then you can have too much, money that is, not truth, you can never have too much truth.

[+] -4 points by DKAtoday (25038) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Truth. A valuable commodity in any market. Unless of coarse you are talking about the greedy corrupt - then it can be pure poison - to THEM.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

People are always asking, "How do we do this?" all we have to do is tell the truth, you know the truth when you hear it, just like you always know what the right thing to do is, we don't always do it but we always know, it's how we're born. That's why this bunch of genes were able to make it this far, people are basicly good.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (25038) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

Truth. It is the ones who are not good that need attention and treatment. They definitely need to be removed from any position of power. Monitored for their own safety as well as for public safety.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

Have you seen the work about how sociopaths do well in corporations?

Sad truth most of them are not in prison, good news it's "only" about 5% of people, still 95% will carry the election if we get them truth, but 5% can cause some real harm if left to their own devices.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (25038) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

A sociopath would do well in many Business operations as to them a decision is a decision or ( the same ) an action is an action. They don't attach values just targets to reach. Very dangerous.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 2 years ago

congress makes the decisions in government

the executive branch executes them

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (6441) from Phoenix, AZ 2 years ago

And in this, we see how factors outside of simple morals, such as elections, not just to retain power but one would assume that many of those elected really believe that they will do good things, so to give one place to do something at another becomes a real choice, as on a corporate board many factors lead to different choices than one might do for themselves, a long way of saying what most people say all the time, democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for all the rest.

In some ways one could say that about capitalism as well, in both cases transparency and a set of rules that is fair to all are the best ways to make them work.

[+] -5 points by DKAtoday (25038) from Coon Rapids, MN 2 years ago

There are good reasons for separation. As long as the action has not been rigged. It can work. Fail-safes are not always effective.