Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr

Forum Post: Was that beer worth 15 trillion dollars?

Posted 7 years ago on April 13, 2012, 8:51 a.m. EST by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

I know Gore was a crap candidate, and Obama has done some flipping, where’s my public option? And what’s up with this mandate? And what the hell is going on in Gitmo? And on and on...

And Bush was the guy to have a beer with,

and who cares if we already have the most conservative Supreme Court in modern history.


How much worst could it be if the GOP take over the Senate?

Do you want to find out?



Read the Rules
[-] 3 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

Scary! I agree with bw below. Just when you think things can't get worse, they get much worse.

Guess we should make the right wing justices eat the uninspected food that they like (without red tape) or ride on the planes with no inspections or traffic control, or Harley's without helmets, cars without seat belts and air bags, medicine from China without inspectors (we already have that) and so forth. You get the idea. If it were localized it might be a self correcting problem?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Thought I would go ahead and say this here:

The bankers and their clients, think they own the countries, they understand that an ongoing business like a country, is better than a hard asset at times. They see these countries as tax collection entities, countries become slaves to their debt, as well as the citizens of those countries. The moneyed sent these guys/gals to Washington let them pay the bill I say.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Local government is most easily controlled by corporate money, the press pays them little mind, a few bucks in their pocket and you can do what you want with the locals, happens all the time, when ever a local person tries to stand up to the big guys they get crushed, like in AK when a state rep tried to hold Tyson accountable for their runoff, they just dumped a million into the race and got rid of her, and I know "public funding" but I see public funded reps getting bought off in AZ all the time. In another case I heard about a judge who was on the wrong side of a lawsuit, got voted out by big money (for a small race) and then the case went the “right” way. In a world where people cared more about their schools than they do The Voice you might be right, but try as I might I can never find out anything about the school board candidates before the election, and I try at least a little. I can’t even get policy statement out of state rep candidates, let alone coverage that would let me watch them, even if I wanted to spend my life doing that. I would rather have it at fed level at least we get a little news from there, and if i had my way i would pay them a lot more make it a financial loss to lose your seat not a gain. Maybe if we paid them more, we would pay attention, I don’t know what it would take really.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

And we must get the money out of elections AND governance at every level, down to school boards and home owner associations. That is why I have been dissatisfied with the Constitutional amendment drafts that don't address the lower levels.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

I think if we just knocked the political ads off the air it would help a lot. i wish we could outlaw them all.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

That's what it means to get the money out. Public funded elections. Debates , sure, with news coverage and posted transcripts. Position papers, with analyses by unaligned groups. Public speeches, with news coverage. And campaigns of 6 weeks duration. No More!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

I agree with all of that, I would like to see those who stand for reelection to have promises/ attempts scorecard as well, I don't expect them to do the things they say they will, I just expect them to try

[-] 2 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

Sure I like scorecards.

For Romney we could have one with columns of "For" and "Against" with dates and a running tally. "He is for this one, 47.2734% of the time and the trend is mostly down in the last 3 weeks and the probability that this trend will continue is 21.462 % + or - 5%" Sort of like a weather forecast, " ...mostly lies with a chance of occasional veracity."

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

I don't know if you are familiar with Nate Silver’s work, he's with the Times now, he use to be one of the good guys, (haha just kidding, he does numbers and tells truth, completely useless), anyway I think for Romney we might need him as he sp. is in stats and probability.

PS If you meet him, don’t play poker with Nate.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

Yep, coke bottle glasses and all. The nerd's nerd of probability. If you don't want to hear it, but need to hear it, he likely to be the guy that tells it to you. I don't think to play poker with Nate, you might do poker with him. Think of it as buying his time.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

if the stakes are low enough......

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

Syndicate it. Sell shares.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

I don't mean to say he isn't worth an investment, just I'm thinking he could win more than few hands, tell you what i think he underestimates just how much that morom thing may count in the end, but then again maybe not, we'll see, that's why they have elections and count most the votes

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

The thing I find most discouraging is that they say it will be close. Says a lot about where we really are.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

I know it is sad, when it is not even a close call, yet so many with such short memories.

[-] 1 points by brightonsage (4494) 7 years ago

And vested interests, which make memories even shorter.

[-] 2 points by elf3 (4112) 7 years ago

nope - probably why we think we have to choose in this ridiculous 2 party system - but I think they are on the same side - they are just duping us into believing otherwise so the system doesn't looked rigged.

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 7 years ago

If you look at who set the banks free from regulation in the 1990's it was both D's and R's.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Glass Steagall.....even though it had been molested before it was repealed, that was the go ahead to turn all of our houses into financial guinea pigs

[-] 2 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 7 years ago

The real go ahead was the 'Commodities Futures Modernization Act of 2000', written by the same people who brought you the end to Glass-Steagall. Never forget the damage caused by Chuck 'the shmuck' Schumer, (D) from NY who sat on the 'Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs' and turned Wall St. loose on us.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 7 years ago

There was a brave, intelligent woman named Brooksley Born who was the chairwoman of the Commodity Future Trading Commission who wanted to regulate derivatives. She stood her ground against the likes of Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin, Arthur Levitt, and Larry Sommers. They ended up defanging her agency, hence derivatives never got regulated. Only Arthur Levitt came out after the 2008 melt-down and had the balls to say that Ms. Born was the most dedicated public servant he has ever known, and that we should have listened to her. There is a great doc called The Warning that covers this.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 7 years ago

Absolutely correct. Ms. Born was a hero at a time when no one was listening. I read about her in the NYT a few years ago. Integrity and courage above and beyond the norm. She was up against some tough mofo's.

[-] 1 points by Odin (583) 7 years ago

I got that doc from my library. It is really worth seeing. Usually I work our with weights while I watch these in my garage. That way i am not only building my mind, but my body too...at the same time, no less. :-)

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

that is a very good point. I am going to do some research on the piece.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

well I know one of them is going to take the office, I do think there is a difference

of course everything would be better if Gore had gotten the help he needed from Nader in FL

[-] 1 points by SparkyJP (1646) from Westminster, MD 7 years ago

John Reed on Big Banks’ Power and Influence

Bill Moyers talks with former Citigroup Chairman John Reed to explore a momentous instance: how the mid-90’s merger of Citicorp and Travelers Group – and a friendly Presidential pen — brought down the Glass-Steagall Act, a crucial firewall between banks and investment firms which had protected consumers from financial calamity since the aftermath of the Great Depression. In effect, says Moyers, they put the watchdog to sleep.

There’s no clearer example of the collusion between government and corporate finance than the Citicorp-Travelers merger, which — thanks to the removal of Glass-Steagall — enabled the formation of the financial behemoth known as Citigroup. But even behemoths are vulnerable; when the meltdown hit, the bank cut more than 50,000 jobs, and the taxpayers shelled out more than $45 billion to save it.


[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 7 years ago

Could care less who you put in charge.I know none of them are going to help anyone but the rich.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Well I guess there's just nothing left to do then, it's all hopeless, want to go to Vegas and drink till it don't matter?

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 7 years ago

There is plenty to do but please do not waste your time thinking that us electoral politics will correct anything.The only hopelessnes is puting your effort into a corrupt decayed corps.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

stupid founding fathers

[-] 1 points by nobnot (529) from Kapaa, HI 7 years ago

Corporations were illeagle at that time.Represenative goverment bought and paid for today subsidised with your tax dollars.The system does not work and people are becoming aware of this.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

ya think?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23154) 7 years ago

There are minor policy differences that impact people's lives and well being in a big way, so no, I do not want to see the Reps take over the Senate. No, thanks. There's bad (Dems) and really, really bad (Reps). Do we need to keep pushing harder on both? Yes.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

The GOP stands a good chance of getting the Senate, so people need to decide if they want to be part of this decision or do they want to sit on the sidelines.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23154) 7 years ago

I'm for making sure people get harmed as little as possible. So, while I push hard with OWS, and I really want much much bigger change, I'll still vote Democratic and be practical.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

I may too, it keeps getting harder to, hell I'm so old I won't around for any change anyway, feeling pretty down about the whole thing this AM, damn Obama, wish we had Hillary, don't know if she would of been better but at least she had balls, anyway just sent letter to Obama telling him I was done with it, but I may get over it by tomorrow, I stop being pissed and start thinking about the country after a bit.

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23154) 7 years ago

I really don't see Hillary as any better. LOL! Worse, even, in my mind.

I will vote Democratic for the children who need their food stamps, the unemployed who need their Unemployment benefits and the old folks who (at least they have health insurance) need their Medicare. Things like that, things that the Reps threaten.

Other than that, I'm pushing for much bigger change. I would like an overhaul to our society and our economy and the way it values labor and the way it cares and protects all of its citizens.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Now I don't even hold Jesus up to be Christ, but Hillary did say “vast right-wing conspiracy” out loud. That woman is tough as nails, IMHO. I’m just tired of the left meeting them halfway, then moving right.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23154) 7 years ago

She's right in there, in the establishment, methinks. And, she's a hawk!!!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

morning BW, (there's problems with that too, but GK gets away with it),

I have question do you think we have "leaders" and if so how do they lead?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23154) 7 years ago

"Leaders" of what? Not sure what you mean.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

I should not have gone here, but you have a number of readers, I don’t think that makes a leader, but people care about what you say, don’t you think?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23154) 7 years ago

I do not consider myself a leader in any way, shape or form. LOL! I just say what I think. That is it. There are many awesome people on here that I have a great deal of respect for.

Re: This Democrat thing. I think both sides are right. So, jph, demian, those guys are right that we need much bigger change, and the other side, supporting the Dems, they are right too, because we can't leave people out in the cold. So, this issue is not as black and white as you guys want to make it. There are long term issues - we need big, big changes. And, there are short term issues - real human beings need every bit of help they can get, right now!

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

ok nugh said thanks for bailing me out

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

I actually do think that GOP has painted themselves into such a corner, that a bunch of smart people like us could kill them off and then we could split the Ds and get the party we need, the Rs are really trapped right now, but if we split out from the Ds now and let them hang on who knows.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (23154) 7 years ago

I think we can be with Occupy which is pushing hard, and do the practical thing which is vote for Obama. We can do both. It's not that complicated. I'd hate to see millions of people lose their unemployment benefits, and gay rights get stripped further, women's rights and religious freedoms degraded, medicaid/medicare put at risk,food stamps put at risk, education privatized, etc., etc. There are a lot of practical issues that matter a lot to people's day to day lives. So, beware!

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

I feel that the key thing that we can bring that no one else will, is the wealth inequality issues, that, helps Ds, hurts Rs every time they talk about it, and let's the Ds not tick off everybody with money, at least till we get the money out.

This is the biggest issue we face as a nation, as individuals become dangerously wealthy they will threaten democracy somehow or the other it’s not about “punishing” anyone, it’s about protecting us, so we don’t fall victim to a government that works for the few, instead of the many.

[-] 2 points by beautifulworld (23154) 7 years ago

All true, factsrfun.

[-] -1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

NEver has there a been a revolution that endorses the current leadership of the nation.

That is why those who know, know this forum is completely shot.

Good night.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23154) 7 years ago

You are not being pragmatic. There are real people with real problems that need some of the social programs that the Dems support and they need them now. That takes nothing away from what Occupy Wall Street or this forum stands for which is much broader watershed change. I am not saying that Occupy should endorse any politician or political party because I don't think it should. I don't think it should link up with MoveOn or any organization within the current political structure. But, I do think, as individuals we can elect the person who will provide the most to the American people in terms of social programs for the time being.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

hchc has been chasing me all over, I've searched his posts, he is only about helping the GOP don't be fooled

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Hchc is a fraud, and I did the same thing to him yesterday, to the point he became a babbling, name calling mess.

I told him to be happy the threads are only saved for 3 mos.

In the threads he started he even stuck up for the 1%

He lives in mortal fear, that anyone would vote democratic.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

they come to stop us from taking action,

For some I understand disappointment, you can tell the difference with a few comments/replies but this is not about me and my feelings, this is a fight for survival.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (23154) 7 years ago

You guys crack me up. But, re: the threads, I think they are archived permanently, at least for now.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

I hope they keep this stuff, I've never written so much in my life, a few have tried to get me to, but this is what I care about.

One day this and all the other sites, home pages and all, will be looked upon like the federalist papers are today.

I can dream can’t I?

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23154) 7 years ago

LOL! Remember Tiouaise? He used to tell me that he was keeping copies of everything. LOL! I hope he's well. You just never know, factsrfun. You just never know.....

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

I'm kinda a rookie, I waited a bit to see if you guys had anything to say, there are so many, that come and go, few ever stick to the big proplem of wealth ineuqality, time will tell...

I was also downtown "at the park" for a bit before coming here, we are doing select actions now

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23154) 7 years ago

There have been some real characters on here. You should check out the early archives. I was looking there yesterday and had a good reminiscent laugh.

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Only 3mos. are available to us through the, user: command and that only offers threads started by.

It would be interesting to go back further, as I can remember getting into it with him in the early days.......Those wild and wooly early days.......

Alright, enough nostalgia............:)

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

cut and save your links to word, then you can get back to them

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

I suppose, but my computers a big enough mess, and I'm not that anal about keeping up with trolls..........................:)

EEeeewww, yer makin' me wonder if they keep files on me.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Early on I had one try that on me, the pull from here and here to "prove" you're a liar, as I started to show how completely consistent I had been, he ran away.

[-] 2 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Isn't that always the way.

Notice that engineer4 just ran for the hills when I pointed out what a hypocrite he was.

Then suddenly Chunks showed up.

It's like merry-go-round sometimes, so I keep snatching the precious "gold" ring form them..

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

I only keep my own, but hey I think about these.

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (23154) 7 years ago

I see what you are saying. Yes, the archive is only searchable by date, but then you could do a "find" if looking for something in a particular thread. I've done it with some success. Yes, the early days were something else. You are right!

[-] 1 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Also of note: I've noticed in the last week or so, that many users that haven't been here since those early days have suddenly shown up here, with no explanation of where they've been for all those months.

Interesting that they waited until those early comments are now no longer easily found.

Marketers and think tankers, checking our pulse ahead of the election circus?

[-] 3 points by beautifulworld (23154) 7 years ago

I've noticed some very old threads being brought up too.

[-] 3 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Good to know, we're still important enough to keep an eye on....:)

[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

People left because this turned into a pro-Dem circle jerk instead of a movement towards something new, you moron.

And as usual, like I was saying last night, scared sheep like you that simply fall in line with the establishment screw it up for those who want change.

Go Rocky Anderson.

Go Jill Stein.

Go anyone who isnt about corruptoin and war.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

here the ideals stand for themselves, if yours is a good position it will rise if you make our cause weaker it will fall,

THIS is what Democracy looks LIKE!!!

[-] -1 points by beautifulworld (23154) 7 years ago

LOL! Flattery?

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

he called me "the leading left wing hack"

I said thank you, he was wrong, you are ;).

(just kidding)

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23154) 7 years ago


[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8706) 7 years ago

You it the nail on the head here BW! Thanks for stating it so clearly. The situation is not that hard to grasp when you explain it so succinctly. I would give this comment a thousand points if I could!!!

[-] 0 points by beautifulworld (23154) 7 years ago

Thanks. I could do without more points, though. LOL!

[-] 2 points by Odin (583) 7 years ago

"I could do without more points..." You deserve those points bw. I'm going to start botting you up all over the place, just to piss you off.

[-] 1 points by beautifulworld (23154) 7 years ago


[-] 2 points by GypsyKing (8706) 7 years ago

Well, you have karma to burn!! I just wish people gave the whole idea of karma a little more thought.

[-] 0 points by craigdangit (326) 7 years ago

All I see are really really really bad reps and really really really bad dems.

[-] 1 points by OccNoVi (415) 7 years ago

Imagine the right wingers blaming Gore for 9/11.

Ya-think that Hillary-bashing was bad....

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

yeah like if he had planned it, it would be like that, but Bush did pass the tax cut that got us here, so who should we blame?

[-] 1 points by MachineShopHippie (216) from Louisville, KY 7 years ago

No, that beer was most certainly not worth it. I don't want a president I could play flag football with. I don't want a president that knows all the words to Auld Lang Syne. I don't really care if we elect a short, fat, unattractive candidate who only drinks turnip juice from a hip flask after midnight, I just want a president that won't lie to me and betray my interests.

Ron Paul!!!

[-] 3 points by ARod1993 (2420) 7 years ago

I've had this discussion before; Ron Paul may not be lying to you about what he wants to do, but a lot of the things he's discussing doing upfront are generally destructive. If you'd like, I can link you to other posts I wrote explaining why this is so.

[-] 2 points by MachineShopHippie (216) from Louisville, KY 7 years ago

Honestly, at this point I don't really care what else he does as long as he brings the soldiers home and doesn't create any more unjustifiable wars.

Really, if he needs to eat a human baby once a month to keep his health up, that's fine with me as long as his presidency is only taking one life per month.

Incidentally, isn't it a little odd that the same people who are waging war on women's reproductive rights because 'All life is sacred and should be protected by force if necessary' are the ones who are all for drone strikes that take out innocent civilians in foreign nations during power struggles over oil?

Maybe if the drones could be linked to killing more fetuses, they would find their moral objection.

Totally off topic, I know.

My point is that I honestly don't care that he wants to dismantle the department of education or the EPA. Those are bloated, inefficient agencies that yield extremely poor results, and actively fail to accomplish their stated goals. Ever notice how the EPA comes down hard on small businesses, but somehow BP and Halliburton get a pass? Or how about the No Child Left Behind act? Does ANYBODY think that worked?

And let's not forget dismantling the Department of Homeland Security, to which I say GREAT!!!

Here's what I'm talking about:


Honestly, if people actually felt involved in their communities, they would be more than capable of educating their children, policing their cities, and deciding what they want to happen in their own towns.

Ron Paul isn't trying to falsely prop up the economy. He isn't trying to forestall the coming collapse. He's saying 'Yeah, things are about to get real ugly, but I have a plan to get us where we need to go.'

Huge decreases in government spending are a big part of that. Cutting down on the ability of the government to squash human rights is another part of that. Also, we need to get out of these horrible foreign wars that only profit the 1%, while costing thousands (at least) of lives. It's bizarre and unsettling to me that the policy makers in our country see no problem with invading sovereign nations over and over again, then when we get kicked out, leaving our secondary army of military contractors in place. We look like imperialistic bullies, and apparently it's OK because none of the countries we're attacking have any real way to attack us back. Shooting the soldiers that we put on the streets of their home towns isn't them attacking us, it's them defending themselves. In the narrative of history, we are Germany and the 'insurgents' are the French Resistance. Except we don't realize - by attacking one country that can't fight back, we aren't incentivising the others to fear and respect us. We're raising an entire generation of young men in Arab and African countries that have known nothing since childhood but to hate and fear the US. They have all grown up with folk tales about the rampaging elephant being brought down by the tiny, clever viper. They are growing up with a narrative that the US is 'THE ENEMY' and that the best thing they can do is strike at us whenever and wherever they can.

A child of 7 on 9/11 is now 18. Ready to apply for admission at any of the many publicly funded US institutions of higher learning that US students can rarely afford, but that influential people from oil-rich countries (like the ones we attack all day) have never had a problem writing checks to.

On 9/11, there were about 16 young men that thought they were sending a message to the West about our occupation of the Arabian Peninsula. How difficult was it to find 16 young men that were true believers who wanted to dedicate their lives to living here undercover, getting jobs and girlfriends, going to our universities, and eventually becoming the world's largest suicide bomb?

How easy is it now?

Again, I don't care if the next president bathes in the blood of virgins on the full moon. If those are the only lives it costs, we are in a much better deal with a much nicer devil than the one we're in now. Don't believe me? Wait about 18 months. An entire generation of Arab and African men are growing up with a seething hatred of us. We need to withdraw, and withdraw NOW.

[-] 1 points by ARod1993 (2420) 7 years ago

Here's the thing with all this; you're right that our foreign policy in the Middle East (and a great deal of the Second and Third World) has been needlessly belligerent and flat-out stupid at times, and you're right that this needs to change. Where you're wrong, though, is assuming that Ron Paul is going to fix that. We've been behaving like assholes in those regions for over seventy years. There's decades worth of bad blood between us and parts of Asia and Africa, and whether we continue as we have been or not that ship has sailed. Continuing on this path may make things worse, but not much more than they're already going to be anytime soon.

Second of all, the cost of what Ron Paul's policies would do to us domestically is far higher than you're letting on. The majority of the agencies he wants to get rid of do not need to go; their problem is that they've become toothless through lack of proper funding and the existence of a revolving door between corporate lobbyists and regulatory positions. Close the loopholes and fund them properly and you'll be far better off than you will if you just start abolishing things and letting terrifically dysfunctional and corrupt states take over additional functions when half of them can't even deal with what they have to do as it is. (I would like to remark that I consider the DHS an exception to my above assertions, and that I'd actually feel far more secure if they were gone than otherwise.)

Further, Ron Paul's policies are likely to be at least as costly to the quality of life (and in certain cases the lives) of the most vulnerable Americans as unjustified wars are to the lives of the citizens of the nations we invade. Things aren't about to get ugly, they are ugly, and they're not showing much signs of getting better. The stimulus was the only thing that kept the country afloat when things were really bad, and at this point only a sustained bottom-up, proactive government can keep us from stagnating and downsliding. We need to Marshall Plan ourselves if we want to fix this, and Paul would rather die than do that.

Further, at this point government spending on social safety nets is the only thing keeping a whole class of people from sliding into Third World-level poverty. Paul doesn't particularly seem to care about that, or if he does he seems to hold the rather naive belief that already underfunded and overstressed private charities will be able to take care of the people who need it the most. We're not talking a baby a month here, we're talking millions of people. One in six Americans is below the poverty line, and if we listen to Paul it's only going to go downhill from there.

[-] 1 points by MachineShopHippie (216) from Louisville, KY 7 years ago

This is exactly my point. We are never going to have a federally funded EPA that we can actually staff with un-bribeable federal employees. We can't even staff Congress with un-bribeable federal employees, and they get a hell of a lot more in their salary package. A federal agency to police the environment through regulation is never going to work because you will ALWAYS be able to convince someone that makes $42,000 per year to 'forget to file the report' or 'maybe don't check out that back building this time' in exchange for a new car for their wife or just a good, old-fashioned envelope full of cash.

We can't do it in Congress:


We can't do it in the Justice Department:


We certainly can't do it in the military:




Oh, don't forget the Dept. of Education:


Did I forget anything?

Oh, gosh... the EPA:

Bribes for government contracts - http://www.frankmckinnon.com/epa_employee_pleads_guilty_to_br.htm

Bribes to ignore Asbestos contamination - http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/cases/criminal/highlights/2012/parrish-scott-03-13-12.pdf

Bribes to ignore Asbestos contamination IN A SCHOOL - http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/879/1056/438509/

Soliciting bribes to allow someone to ignore regulations- http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1994-09-06/news/9409060165_1_car-dealer-tanks-removal

The only way we can have true accountability is to bring things back to the local level. I won't go to Washington to speak with my Congressional representative, but I absolutely have gone to Frankfort to speak to my state representatives.

The long and the short of it is that people should have power in their state and local elections, and the vast majority of the time when they are ignored by their representatives, it's because the feds are running roughshod over the will of the people. Politicians tend to be a lot more responsive to people they know, who can show up at their office. In Washington, that means corporate interests and PACs. In Kentucky, that occasionally still means the people who elected the officials. If people didn't feel so helpless to do anything because of federal interference, they might actually fix problems themselves. But instead, we have large teacher's unions made up of people who started out just wanting to educate children, but now are fighting state agencies over budget cuts while federal agencies are setting the curriculum and more and more children are being 'left behind'. Why don't any of these educators try to make a difference by changing the way their school runs? Why not modify the curriculum? Why not change the way that students are taught and tested? Because then your school loses it's accreditation. Your students might be better, but they would also be non-homogenized, and that is unacceptable.

As for your belief that 'The stimulus was the only thing that kept the country afloat when things were really bad, and at this point only a sustained bottom-up, proactive government can keep us from stagnating and downsliding.':


Although I have to admit, I LOVE the fact that you accepted a baby-per-month measure of presidential blood lust. And I agree with you that thousands, or millions of people are about to die. It's just a question of how much longer things get worse before something happens to make them get better. I guarantee you, Ron Paul may not be the perfect candidate, but he's a hell of a lot better than Romney or Obama.

We are sliding into the abyss right now. Do we really want another 4 years of war and capital gains by the 1% before we take the plunge? I'm ready, let's just do this.

[-] 1 points by geo (2638) from Concord, NC 7 years ago

Ron Paul is a professional politician like the rest. His feet are made of clay as well. Besides Congress (lobbyists) write the laws, not the President.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Have you read “Atlas Shrugged”?


[-] 1 points by MachineShopHippie (216) from Louisville, KY 7 years ago

Read it, loved it. But then, I really just love the idea of a man making his wife a bracelet out of his own proprietary alloy. Chick metal workers think stuff like that is sooo romantic.

But seriously, I have no problem with capitalism. I have a problem with ruthless greed and destructive business that generates no real value. As soon as banks could loan out and trade more money than they had actual deposits, it was the beginning of the end. As soon as money was no longer tied to any actual commodity of value (gold, silver, teeth, whatever), it was inevitable that we would get to where we are.

Ayn Rand has some excellent points about human behavior and rights. She also is loosely interpreted in a number of ways, especially when using already loaded words like 'value' and 'life' and 'selfishness'.

I appreciate her beliefs on free-market capitalism, but I also participate in a number of community-building causes and donate my time, efforts and money to charitable causes that I support, not because they benefit me personally, but because they help the community. Although, I must say that even the anarchists, socialists and communists I meet volunteering seem to put their efforts toward causes that personally affect them in some way. Self-interest can be a motivation for good or evil, but again, those are all loaded words that people debate about endlessly.

Long story short, I've read it, and because of that, I've learned to debate about it. Frankly though, it's a book. I've also read the Bible and parts of the Book of Mormon, and tried to get through parts of the Qu'ran and the Baghavad Gita and the Upanishads. Much like Atlas Shrugged, they are religious texts to some, and I'm glad I took the tome to try to explore them, but I don't live my life by their doctrines either.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

It's a book that Ron Paul likes so much he named his child accordingly.

Ron Paul believes in a world where corporate boradrooms make all choices for socity, I disagree with that.

Good point about people volunteering, one exception I saw was at St. Vincet De Paul, but it wasn't thanksgiving when I was there so who knows?

[-] 0 points by shoozTroll (17632) 7 years ago

Mr. P is a proven liar all around.

Just take a look at his son and know the apple doesn't fall too far from the tree.


[-] 0 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

It will be exactly the same. More corportism, just spoon fed to you in a different manner.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

We should all just give up now I guess, nothing to do, after all look at what happen to the Greens in 04, what, exactly.

[-] 1 points by hchc (3297) from Tampa, FL 7 years ago

Another very telling post by the leading left wing hack on this site.

Who said anything about giving up? Never give up. Try to educate and recruit the masses into something that matters.

Or just go campaign for Obama or Mittens.

Its up to you.

[-] 0 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

really do you think i'm "the leading left wing hack"

wow thank you

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 7 years ago

"Obama has done some flipping"

Obama has done some mass child-murder with killer-flying-Terminator2-style-creepy-robots:


And has received more bribes from Wall Street than anyone else in the history of the world:


Among many other "flip-flops".

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

so your point is that Romney will get rid of the drones, haven't heard him say that, and Obama is tied closer to big money than Romney, hmmm I don't think I believe that, but those that do should listen to you

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

You've convinced me Romney would be much better, and appoint much better judges!

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 7 years ago

Obama's deep and abiding respect for the constitution is something I hadn't considered. I'm it's not like he went above and beyond the The Bush administration to destroy the Constitution by assassinating US citizens without a trial or passing legislation that gives the president the power detain US citizens at will even on US soil without due process.

I mean, cause' that would be crazy! Some nutty shit like that would be worse than anything the Bush administration ever did---and It would make the Patriot Act (something Obama also supports) look like child's play.

Good thing Obama is going to protect the Constitution from the big bad republicans plotting to over turn Roe v. Wade.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

look as i just said I supported Hillary, cause i always knew you can't work with mad dogs, all you can do with mad dogs is put them down, but a bunch of stary eyed kids, the kind that vote third party gave us Obama, so this is where we are at, but no way I'm not doing all I can to defeat Republicans, disappointment has not made me stupid.

[-] 0 points by EricBlair (447) 7 years ago

You should note that no republican has tried to do anything as ambitious and horrible as the 2012 NDAA.

Bush couldn't have gotten it through in his wet dreams.

Obama was only able to do it because of the "lesser evil" perception. If Bush had tried it everyone would have shat bricks. Obama gets a pass though because he is thought to be the only thing standing in the way of the Republican boogeyman---and he can count on people like you to categorically support him no matter what horrific crimes he commits. Including when he does things that are worse than Bush by far (and that no republican could ever get away with):


I have a question for you. And I'm being perfectly sincere about this, no sarcasm.

Is there anything that Obama could do to lose your vote? Anything at all? Just hypothetically now. What would he have to do? Is there any line he could cross? Or is there nothing? Would you give him your absolute support in all possible circumstances---in order to keep the republican menace at bay.

Just think about that question for me. Think about the idea of absolute loyalty to a candidate or party---no matter what. To vote for someone no matter how many kids they blow to pieces with creepy-flying robots---because the republican might do more? Is that right?

Is there nothing he could do?

If Obama shot your mother right in front of you, would you still vote for him?

I'm not just saying that for shock value and I'm not trying to be condescending in this---I'm honestly asking you to think about that.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Tell you what anyplace where Romney is not on the ballot, you should not vote for Obama otherwise, it would be stupid to vote any other way.

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 7 years ago

You didn't answer my question.

Could you give me a single example?

What would it take for him to lose your vote?

Could he take any action?

I'm serious.

If there is literally nothing he could possibly do (even hypothetically) where you would no longer support him, could you say that---just tell me "No nothing he could do."

This isn't a trick, and I know that we have been exchanging snide remarks at each other but I mean this in a very real way. I apologize if I was rude to you before. I just genuinely want to know.

Are you so afraid of a republican getting into office that you would support obama even if he lined people up into gas chambers? If he did this, would you tell me that Mitt Romney would put more people into gas chambers---and that therefor there is no alternative?

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Let me be clear it would take Romney not being on the ballot!

Got it?

like I've said, hardcore

if there is no R, don't need to vote D otherwise it is not worth the chance period

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 7 years ago

"The art of leadership... consists in consolidating the attention of the people against a single adversary and taking care that nothing will split up that attention."----Adolf Hitler

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

well since you've called me Hitler, I guess we're done

[-] 0 points by EricBlair (447) 7 years ago

I'm not comparing you to Hitler.

[-] 1 points by Demian (497) from San Francisco, CA 7 years ago

In other words yes she would vote for him even if he ordered a drone strike on an orphanage in her home town.

[-] -1 points by EricBlair (447) 7 years ago

It's made you think your vote counts....lol

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

Are you crazy!

Nothing counts!

I mean camping in the park, what the hell is that going to do, holding a sign? I mean really why do anything, none of it matters.

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 7 years ago

Occupying Wall Street: Radically alters entire public discourse, raises mass consciousness, builds social movement.

Voting: Reinforces illusion of democracy, pacifies public, distracts from real direct action, wastes paper.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

we should just let Trump decide, he could make a show of it

[-] 1 points by EricBlair (447) 7 years ago

Wouldn't be much different than the way we do it now.

[-] 1 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

since we truned our backs on Gore, keep doing the same thing I guess

[-] -2 points by veepveep (-7) 7 years ago

If conservative is thinking as the founding fathers thought, then I'm all for it.

This government has gotten more and more powerful while the individual as lost more and more of their choice, freedom and rights through mandates by idiots in Washington DC.

Strike it down. I want no central planner forcing me to buy a product or service from a private company and constantly telling me what's best for me in every aspect of my life. That sets a precedent that everyone will regret. It's my life; leave me alone and screw this "greater good" crap.

Folks, the ends don't always justify the means.

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

So get rid of the standing army?

You're may have a point there.

[-] -2 points by veepveep (-7) 7 years ago

Twist this into an anti-military tirade all you want, but you know I'm right.


Article 2, Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;

Article 1, Section 8

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[-] 2 points by factsrfun (8231) from Phoenix, AZ 7 years ago

thought you were a "founding fathers" guy, do you not know what Jefferson said about standing armies?,

"when called upon"

[-] -1 points by veepveep (-7) 7 years ago

Yup. And they've been called upon.