|
|
Post by TonyV on Oct 7, 2010 16:40:52 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 7, 2010 17:30:37 GMT -5
I agree with you on this one.He has the wrong info on this.Also ford is making Billions again with a UNION.Its gov regs that hold us back and free trade.
|
|
|
|
Post by kessinger on Oct 7, 2010 20:12:50 GMT -5
Well, at least we now know what he thinks of us. I hate how they act like inept management of a company had nothing to do with the failure. And he doesn't even address AIG in the question.
I am sure many here will still vote for him, despite the fact that he just declared WE ALL were the downfall of the auto industry and every one of us that works here knows better. They would run nothing but junk if the people on the line didn't fight em on it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Grimace on Oct 8, 2010 3:53:28 GMT -5
[His quote during an interview]
IBD: You say you're opposed to all federal bailouts. Do you think the country would be better off today if companies like AIG and General Motors had been allowed to fail?
Rand Paul: Absolutely. I think GM and most of the automakers in Detroit will never make money as long as they are unionized. If they went to a nonunion model they would have a chance of making money. I think their labor costs are twice what Toyota's are. I don't know how you compete with somebody when you have twice the labor costs. President Obama came in and overruled the traditional bankruptcy laws that said that you were a preferred bondholder but we're going to take that money, divvy it up and give some to the AFL-CIO. That really just prolonged the agony and problems of GM, and I don't see their business model working until they get their costs in order.
He's the same as what we already have, next candidate...
|
|
|
|
Post by nvsked1 on Oct 8, 2010 10:17:47 GMT -5
Lets see, no bankruptcy for large corporations that fail, and we bail them out on the tax payers dollar. The current administration has spent trillions of our tax dollars and drove the deficit deeper into the shitter and passed socialized health care that will triple the deficit within two more years. The same administration is about to give amnesty to 15 million illegal aliens that will add to the deficit. And Hussein is getting ready to have KTP become a freaking museum by making MPG standards an unreachable level for trucks/SUV's in the next 15 years. This scares me more then Pauls comments. Man I've heard of drinking the republican kool aid ...but you must be main lining the stuff... The banking bailout was constructed and push through by bush administration And without it the country would have gone into a depression! But the problem was brought on by no holes barred trading practices, so we now have tighter investment measures. The back lash to that, is banks cry we'll make it harder to get credit. Healthcare reform... 60% of the healthcare in this country is funded by the government i.e. medicare, medicade, federal employee's etc. Unsustainable! Social security is threatened by healthcare cost (medicare)...aging population something had to be done.... What's the republican idea...just say NO we are not going to look at profit margins of doctors / hospitals this is capitalism, free market etc But now wages are NOT free market we need some trade pacts to drive down them wages...and for God's sake get rid of them Union socialist son's of bitches ....Blah Blah Blah........... Save it dude... vote your vote...I hope to cancel yours out.... RESPECTFULLY OF COURSE...enjoy the debate but respectfully disagree P.S. we build enough 40 mpg cars it offsets the trucks we build e.g. Corporate Fuel Avg I know I know more negative karma I get it |
|
|
|
Post by nvsked1 on Oct 8, 2010 20:26:57 GMT -5
P.S. we build enough 40 mpg cars it offsets the trucks we build e.g. Corporate Fuel Avg I know I know more negative karma I get it WASHINGTON - In keeping with President Obama's vision to reduce greenhouse gases and increase fuel efficiency, the U.S. Department of Transportation's (DOT) National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), announced they will begin the process of developing tougher greenhouse gas and fuel economy standards for passenger cars and TRUCKS built in model years 2017 through 2025. This will build on the success of the first phase of the national program covering cars from model years 2012-2016. green.autoblog.com/2010/10/01/confirmed-u-s-considering-62-mpg-cafe-target-by-2025/Will you be thanking Obama for f**king you out of a job by 2017? So show me where we are not talking about fuel AVERAGES?? Which is why they group them "cars and trucks" and avg fuel economy ... 100,000 cars@40 mpg allows 25,000 trucks at 20 mpg |
|
|
|
Post by nvsked1 on Oct 8, 2010 20:43:59 GMT -5
Like I posted before, I'm not in the Bush fan club or am I a Republican, I'm registered as an Independent. Both parties suck major ass but its people like you who think the Dems are the greatest thing on earth. Socialized Health Care (and mark my words) will put our deficit so much deeper in debt, that we will never, ever get out of debt. This will ruin the whole Capitalist system of America. Instead of Hussein going after the insurers (like he did the credit card co.s that back-fired badly in his face) he went ahead and pushed this shit down our throats. Social Security will be extinct in less then 10 years because of this and the illegals becoming citizens. Bush never finalized the bailouts, it was senate meetings and hearings that set the tone for Hussein to decide on. Claims of socialism Many conservatives strongly opposed the enactment of Medicare, warning that a government-run program would lead to socialism in America: • Ronald Reagan, as part of Operation Coffee Cup in 1961, stated that: “ f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.”[68]
• George H. W. Bush, while a candidate for the US Senate in 1964, described Medicare as “socialized medicine.”[69]
• Barry Goldwater in 1964: “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.”[70]
• In 1995 Bob Dole stated that he was one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare in 1965. “I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare ... because we knew it wouldn’t work in 1965.” [71]
History repeats itself, the Republicants are against social security, they're against medicare, against, against, etc........
So what's their plan, they had an opportunity to be involved in the healthcare debate. Instead, it's Nancy Regan all over again.....just say NO.........SO WHAT THE F#CK IS THEIR PLAN!!! and not just lining the pockets of the insurance, AMA, and drug company pockets.....
Oh and part of medicare, like 4 billion dollars goes to pay the salaries of Doctors in training....the fricken hospital benefits from that big time!! You (hospital) then turn around and bill medicare for the treatment the doc (in training) provided and we the TAX PAYER pays for it all.........of course us auto workers maker too much money
I know more negative karma |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 8, 2010 22:03:25 GMT -5
Stop taking my money from me and let me provide for my self.I dont want in on this SS or medicare and all the other CRAP.Im better off if I can use the money as I want not how GOV wants me to use it.
|
|
|
|
Post by elmer on Oct 8, 2010 23:41:32 GMT -5
Stop taking my money from me and let me provide for my self.I dont want in on this SS or medicare and all the other CRAP.Im better off if I can use the money as I want not how GOV wants me to use it. We tried that and Senior citizens who where no longer able to work lived in extreme poverty conditions. Now you say I dont want SS or Medicare you want to invest it yourself. but what happens if you lose it in the market and have no more money and no longer able to work? |
|
|
|
Post by nvsked1 on Oct 9, 2010 10:44:13 GMT -5
Like I posted before, I'm not in the Bush fan club or am I a Republican, I'm registered as an Independent. Both parties suck major ass but its people like you who think the Dems are the greatest thing on earth. Socialized Health Care (and mark my words) will put our deficit so much deeper in debt, that we will never, ever get out of debt. This will ruin the whole Capitalist system of America. Instead of Hussein going after the insurers (like he did the credit card co.s that back-fired badly in his face) he went ahead and pushed this shit down our throats. Social Security will be extinct in less then 10 years because of this and the illegals becoming citizens. Bush never finalized the bailouts, it was senate meetings and hearings that set the tone for Hussein to decide on. Claims of socialism Many conservatives strongly opposed the enactment of Medicare, warning that a government-run program would lead to socialism in America: • Ronald Reagan, as part of Operation Coffee Cup in 1961, stated that: “ f you don’t [stop Medicare] and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.”[68]
• George H. W. Bush, while a candidate for the US Senate in 1964, described Medicare as “socialized medicine.”[69]
• Barry Goldwater in 1964: “Having given our pensioners their medical care in kind, why not food baskets, why not public housing accommodations, why not vacation resorts, why not a ration of cigarettes for those who smoke and of beer for those who drink.”[70]
• In 1995 Bob Dole stated that he was one of 12 House members who voted against creating Medicare in 1965. “I was there, fighting the fight, voting against Medicare ... because we knew it wouldn’t work in 1965.” [71]
History repeats itself, the Republicants are against social security, they're against medicare, against, against, etc........
So what's their plan, they had an opportunity to be involved in the healthcare debate. Instead, it's Nancy Regan all over again.....just say NO.........SO WHAT THE F#CK IS THEIR PLAN!!! and not just lining the pockets of the insurance, AMA, and drug company pockets.....
Oh and part of medicare, like 4 billion dollars goes to pay the salaries of Doctors in training....the fricken hospital benefits from that big time!! You (hospital) then turn around and bill medicare for the treatment the doc (in training) provided and we the TAX PAYER pays for it all.........of course us auto workers maker too much money
I know more negative karmaSo how many republicans are willing to come out and denounce social security...NOW an election year AND TO DATE I HAVE NOT SEEN ANY IDEAS FROM THE REPUBLICAN TEAM to address rising health care cost, social security shortages etc so please please enlighten me |
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Oct 9, 2010 13:26:00 GMT -5
Where have you been......... One of Republicans idea is to raise taxes on only Democrats, to pay for all their Bull Shit......There, problem solved!......
|
|
|
|
Post by nvsked1 on Oct 9, 2010 15:36:19 GMT -5
Where have you been......... One of Republicans idea is to raise taxes on only Democrats, to pay for all their Bull Shit......There, problem solved!...... LMAO...Good one dude |
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 10, 2010 0:02:10 GMT -5
What happens if I lose my money, well its my fault and not up to others to take care of me.Good grief people get out of my Damn pockets please I can take care of myself! Keep your socialism and let me have my freedom.
|
|
|
|
Post by kessinger on Oct 11, 2010 14:18:12 GMT -5
So marcus, 2 years ago when we were working every other week and the market took our nest eggs away, was that your fault? If it was then next time we talk we are gonna have issues lol, you screwed me.
My point being you can come to work everyday, work your ass off, do the right thing for what ever company you work for and at the end of the day you can still lose everything due to someone elses decissions or lack thereof.
America is never going to be a place where we let old people die in the streets. I doubt even Anal or Polar want that. It comes down to how we keep those people from dieing in our streets. I for one say tax the rich a few percent higher than the rest of us, they care very little for me and mine so I figure turn around is fair play.
|
|
|
|
Post by jobs1stb4polarbear on Oct 11, 2010 19:17:58 GMT -5
I am not wealthy, nor are many of my friends. But, we do know who keeps us earning. In all the checks I’ve received in my life, luckily, none were issued by this nor any administration.
I am not referring to those legitimately on the payroll, the military, VA, contractors etc.
The people able to REALLY create jobs are my family, neighbors, friends, coworkers etc. We are in the middle class,or the wealthy. We are the ones who keep fellow Americans working, electricians, plumbers, mechanics, retailers, investors and all the other people who DO keep the world turning.
For those who want to demonize or TAX “the rich”, make sure you know the monetary definition, for it’s not as much as some think. Then, take a look at your paycheck. You won’t see Barry’s name, Pelosi’s nor Reid’s. Oh, and when you do take a look at that check, be sure to see how much is going to the government. Put that number in your memory, because come January 2011, you’ll wish it was that number again.
Mr Kessinger....you will never here anyone say "A Poor Man Gave Me A Job Today".........do not bite the hand that feeds you!
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 12, 2010 17:54:22 GMT -5
No it was not my fault and its not up to some other tax payer to give me money because I lost money in the market.
Freedom is not having the GOV in your pocket taking from you and giving to others.Freedom is being able to take care of yourself and to do that GOV needs to get out of the way.We punish people now adays that make money and make jobs.We take way to much from them.
My uncle owns a little gas station and he is taxed to death because he is rich makes 250K a year but thats not profit!
After he pays 5 workers,insurance,taxes I make more than him but he is RICH! So lets tax him even more.This new obama tax will only hurt rich people whatever.
|
|
|
|
Post by elmer on Oct 12, 2010 21:13:38 GMT -5
Then your uncle needs a new accountant and probably needs to sell his gas station doesn't sound like he has one brain cell. Any accountant who went to jr college can tell you that you only pay taxes on your profits and for uncle to be paying taxes on his cross revenues is about the most dumb thing i ever read.
If he's netting $250,000 a year, then yell he's doing pretty good and 1% increase in his income taxes wont hurt him a bit.
|
|
|
|
Post by axleman on Oct 13, 2010 8:23:34 GMT -5
Then your uncle needs a new accountant and probably needs to sell his gas station doesn't sound like he has one brain cell. Any accountant who went to jr college can tell you that you only pay taxes on your profits and for uncle to be paying taxes on his cross revenues is about the most dumb thing i ever read. If he's netting $250,000 a year, then yell he's doing pretty good and 1% increase in his income taxes wont hurt him a bit. Thats some "Bob King accounting 101". Hey Elmer since 1% of 250,000 is only 250 bucks why don't you put YOUR money where your mouth is and help Uncle out! HAHA! That elmer is entertaining! lol |
|
|
|
Post by elmer on Oct 13, 2010 16:39:54 GMT -5
Obama wants the top rate at 36% I admit I don't know what the top rate is but think it about 35%
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 13, 2010 16:55:13 GMT -5
That was 250 GROSS not profit.And its going to be more than 1 percent and I think being single its anything over 200K gross.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 13, 2010 16:58:34 GMT -5
So elmer you think near 40 percent of your income is ok to take?That 40 percent is not all that gets taken you still got to count all the other taxes to.
|
|
|
|
Post by elmer on Oct 13, 2010 21:11:49 GMT -5
Obama said take the top rate up to 36% not 40% 36% form 34 or 35% for those making $250,000 and up is not unreasonable considering all the spending thats been going on in the last 10 years.
|
|
|
|
Post by kessinger on Oct 14, 2010 7:46:33 GMT -5
The arguments from the Republicans just kill me. They have no basis in fact or history.
If you issue is Debt. Republicans have created more debt that Dems. See here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
If your issue is jobs. Unemplyment has went up under every Rep. president since the 40's except Reagan and has went down under every Dem. except Carter.
If your issue is abortion. Well that was decided by a majority Rep. surpreme court and Reagan himself made abortion legal in Cally.
If its tax rate. Taxes are lower now than they were 6 of the 8 years Reagan was in office. And lower than they have ever been in the USA with the exception of one 4 yr stretch. And during the biggest economic booms in our history the top tax rates for the rich were very high not low, busting the myth that if you don't tax the rich they somehow create jobs.
If its immigration, only one president in history has granted amnesty for illegals and he had a Big OL (R) in front of his name.
So tell me what your issue is and then show me some facts to support why the R's should have my vote. Not some sound clip or quote, real facts.
I'll gladly vote for a Republican if he isn't just talking the talk.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcus on Oct 14, 2010 8:55:53 GMT -5
You guys dont get it im not a R or D they both take from me and im sick of it! I just so happen to not agree with Obama on 90 percent of everything he stands for.
I disagree 100 percent with Reagan granting amnesty and abortion.
Congress sets tax issues not the pres.So you have to look at who controls congress during what ever years you are looking at.
1948 3.8
1949 5.9
1950 5.3
1951 3.3
1952 3.0
1953 2.9
1954 5.5
1955 4.4
1956 4.1
1957 4.3
1958 6.8
1959 5.5
1960 5.5
1961 6.7
1962 5.5
1963 5.7
1964 5.2
1965 4.5
1966 3.8
1967 3.8
1968 3.6
1969 3.5
1970 4.9
1971 5.9
1972 5.6
1973 4.9
1974 5.6
1975 8.5
1976 7.7
1977 7.1
1978 6.1
1979 5.8
1980 7.1
1981 7.6
1982 9.7
1983 9.6
1984 7.5
1985 7.2
1986 7.0
1987 6.2
1988 5.5
1989 5.3
1990 5.6
1991 6.8
1992 7.5
1993 6.9
1994 6.1
1995 5.6
1996 5.4
1997 4.9
1998 4.5
1999 4.2
2000 4.0
2001 4.7
2002 5.8
2003 6.0
2004 5.5
2005 5.1
2006 4.6
2007 4.6
2008 5.8
2009 9.3
You have to look at who controls congress on most issues.Its congress.I vote for who I agree with most on more of the issues
|
|
|
|
Post by nvsked1 on Oct 14, 2010 13:38:18 GMT -5
www.american.com/archive/2007/november-december-magazine-contents/guess-who-really-pays-the-taxes What is the economic logic behind these lower tax rates? As legend has it, the famous “Laffer Curve” was first drawn by economist Arthur Laffer in 1974 on a cocktail napkin at a small dinner meeting attended by the late Wall Street Journal editor Robert Bartley and such high-powered policymakers as Richard Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld. Laffer showed how two different rates—one high and one low—could produce the same revenues, since the higher rate would discourage work and investment. The Laffer Curve helped launch Reaganomics here at home and ignited a frenzy of tax cutting around the globe that continues to this day. It’s also one of the simplest concepts in economics: lowering the tax rate on production, work, investment, and risk-taking will spur more of these activities and will often produce more tax revenue rather than less. reason.com/archives/2010/05/03/how-starving-government-stillWhat he neglected to consider is how much kids would curb their consumption if they could circumvent that restriction with Dad's credit card. Under Reagan, spending rose 22 percent (adjusted for inflation) and the government debt tripled. But Republicans have stuck to the strategy ever since. www.taxfoundation.org/files/sr151.pdfA New Way Forward on Tax Reform Once we realize taxes and spending are two sides of the same coin, new ways to achieve better tax policy for America become possible….For example, in 2005 the recommenda¬tions of the President’s Advisory Panel on Federal Tax Reform were sharply criticized for not proposing sufficiently bold tax reforms. However, the reason they made modest recom¬mendations is that the panel was hamstrung by the Bush administration’s requirement that all tax plans be “distributionally neutral,” leaving the spread of tax burdens across income groups unchanged. This fixation on tax distributions—while ignoring government spending—makes little sense. A more appropriate criterion would have been fiscal distributional neutrality, which would allow for a loss of tax progressivity so long as it’s offset on the spending side. Conclusion The burden of government on American house¬holds looks very different when we look at both taxes and government spending. Just as some households pay more taxes than others, some receive much more government spending. Taken together, governments at all levels redis¬tribute a substantial amount of income between the nation’s income groups each year—a fact that’s not obvious by looking at taxes alone. mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=488Taxes Before looking at taxation under Reagan, we must note that spending is the better indicator of the size of the government. If government cuts taxes, but not spending, it still gets the money from somewhere—either by borrowing or inflating. Either method robs the productive sector. Although spending is the better indicator, it is not complete, because it ignores other ways in which the government deprives producers of wealth. For instance, it conceals regulation and trade restricdons, which may require little government outlay. If we look at government revenues as a percentage of "national income," we find little change from the Carter days, despite heralded "tax cuts." In 1980, revenues were 25.1% of "national income." In the first quarter of 1988 they were 24.7%. Reagan came into office proposing to cut personal income and business taxes. The Economic Recovery Act was supposed to reduce revenues by $749 billion over five years. But this was quickly reversed with the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982. TEFRA—the largest tax increase in American history—was designed to raise $214.1 billion over five years, and took back many of the business tax savings enacted the year before. It also imposed withholding on interest and dividends, a provision later repealed over the president's objection. But this was just the beginning. In 1982 Reagan supported a five-cent-per-gallon gasoline tax and higher taxes on the trucking industry. Total increase: $5.5 billion a year. In 1983, on the recommendation of his Spcial Security Commission— chaired by the man he later made Fed chairman, Alan Green-span—Reagan called for, and received, Social Security tax increases of $165 billion over seven years. A year later came Reagan's Deficit Reduction Act to raise $50 billion. Even the heralded Tax Reform Act of 1986 is more deception than substance. It shifted $120 billion over five years from visible personal income taxes to hidden business taxes. It lowered the rates, but it also repealed or reduced many deductions. According to the Treasury Department, the 1981 tax cut will have reduced revenues by $1.48 trillion by the end of fiscal 1989. But tax increases since 1982 will equal $1.5 trillion by 1989. The increases include not only the formal legislation mentioned above but also bracket creep (which ended in 1985 when tax indexing took effect—a provision of the 1981 act despite Reagan's objection), $30 billion in various tax changes, and other increases. Taxes by the end of the Reagan era will be as large a chunk of GNP as when he took office, if not larger: 19.4%, by ultra-conservative estimate of the Reagan Office of Management and Budget. The so-called historic average is 18.3%. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReaganomicsAs a result of all this, the budget deficit and federal debt increased considerably: debt grew from 33.3% of GDP in 1980 to 51.9% at the end of 1988 [16] and the deficit increased from 2.7% in 1980 to more than double in 1983, when it reached 6%; in 1984, 1985 and 1986 it was around 5%.[17] In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion,[18] and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation.[19] Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency First modern Pres.to use fiscal discipline to balance budget The budget deficit inherited from the Bush presidency was staggering. Bill Clinton felt a commitment to the kind of fiscal politics out of which Republican presidents had made rhetorical hay for two generations, while presidents from both parties allowed debt to pile up. www.ontheissues.org/celeb/Bill_Clinton_Budget_+_Economy.htmMost of the platform that had been the foundation for Clinton’s victory, which featured a menu of social programs, was instantly challenged. Ironically, those first 100 days, while the bottom sometimes seemed to be falling out of the new presidency, the course was actually set for a historic economic recovery and boom. Clinton alone among contemporary presidents grasped the possibilities of the global economy, and what the explosive power of America’s technical invention & new industries could do for the domestic economy. He became the first modern president to actually exercise, as opposed to merely talk about, the fiscal discipline necessary to cut and even balance the federal budget. GOOD OL GEORGE W en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_policy_of_the_George_W._Bush_administrationThe last two years of his presidency were characterized by the worsening subprime mortgage crisis, which resulted in dramatic government intervention to bailout damaged financial institutions and a weakening economy. The U.S. national debt grew significantly from 2001 to 2008, both in dollars terms and relative to the size of the economy (GDP),[1] due to a combination of tax cuts and wars in both Afghanistan and Iraq. Budgeted spending under President Bush averaged 19.9% of GDP, similar to his predecessor President Bill Clinton, although tax receipts were lower at 17.9% versus 19.1%.[2] The tax cuts have been largely opposed by American economists, including the Bush administration's own Economic Advisement Council.[10] In 2003, 450 economists, including ten Nobel Prize laureate, signed the Economists' statement opposing the Bush tax cuts, sent to President Bush stating that "these tax cuts will worsen the long-term budget outlook... will reduce the capacity of the government to finance Social Security and Medicare benefits as well as investments in schools, health, infrastructure, and basic research... [and] generate further inequalities in after-tax income."[11]
The Bush administration has claimed, based on the concept of the Laffer Curve, that the tax cuts actually paid for the themselves by generating enough extra revenue from additional economic growth to offset the lower taxation rates. However, income tax revenues in dollar terms did not regain their FY 2000 peak until 2006. Through the end of 2008, total federal tax revenues relative to GDP have yet to regain their 2000 peak.[12]HEY DON'T BELIEVE ME DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH....BUT DO YOUR SELF A FAVOR AND DO RESEARCH
|
|
|
|
Post by nvsked1 on Oct 14, 2010 14:05:02 GMT -5
There is also a well known political philosopher dating back to 400 BC that described the political process as reflections on the wall of the cave....Plato.... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PlatoPlato's metaphor of the cave Plato's parable of the cave is a metaphor for ignorance and knowledge. Imagine, says Plato, a cave in which prisoners are chained in such a way that all they can see are shadows thrown on a wall in front of them. All they know of life are these shadows. They would think that these shadows were reality, having known nothing else. If one of them were freed, and allowed to emerge into the daylight, he would see things as they are, and realize how limited his vision was in the cave. He would be quite unwilling to return: The Republic. The freed person is then turned around and exposed to the fire and objects. Imagine all that you know as reality suddenly being false and having to learn a whole new reality. This painful process is the beginning of education. Good luck to all..... I know more negative Karma |
|
|
|
Post by axleman on Oct 14, 2010 14:18:10 GMT -5
The problem is that we all believe our own point of view is the correct one. The Democrats seem to be inclusive to all groups but conservatives and especially hate "religious conservatives" and their point of view. As I've said before both parties have been corrupted and we need a change. Don't really know the answer, but know bickering back and forth does nothing but divide us more.
|
|
|
|
Post by ScottR@KTP on Oct 14, 2010 15:27:03 GMT -5
I have been patient to chime in on this topic...but I really hope there is a 3rd option...I can't vote for either one of these clowns. I wish we could find someone closer to the middle.
|
|
|
|
Post by nvsked1 on Oct 14, 2010 17:16:49 GMT -5
I have been patient to chime in on this topic...but I really hope there is a 3rd option...I can't vote for either one of these clowns. I wish we could find someone closer to the middle. It's unfortunate there are not more choices, but just like poker you have to play the hand your dealt. Why are these people running for office, its not typically for the greater good, its about money. My take on Rand Paul is two fold, his father is in politics, he wants to match the ol man i.e. like the Bush's And, he's a physician the AMA, the drug companies, and insurance lobby need someone who is on their side.......where's Paul's money for commercials coming from, with the Supreme court ruling allowing unlimited outside political money, the cost of getting elected just went up... Everybody has their choice....... |
|
|
|
Post by kessinger on Oct 15, 2010 8:34:54 GMT -5
NVs. Good article. Nothing lieka little odse of reality.
|
|
