The Founding Fathers were....

[Guest]

liberals

Google it yourself. I don't want to be accused swaying anyon.... :D

[Guest]

liberals

Google it yourself. I don't want to be accused swaying anyon.... :D

Trust me, you are swaying NOBODY !!!!

What point is it that you attempt to make ???

[Guest]

In my humble opinion, like many other things, "liberals" or what ever from days of old have not one thing in common with today's assertion of what constitutes a liberal or liberalism!!!

btk

[Guest]

In my humble opinion, like many other things, "liberals" or what ever from days of old have not one thing in common with today's assertion of what constitutes a liberal or liberalism!!!

btk

You are right BTK....I am shocked by anyone who feels that liberals and conservatives or Democrats and Republicans are the same as they were, say in the 60's !

I was very active in the Democrat party in the 60's and early 70's but left as they sped hell bent to the hard left....not my cup of tea and today, the Soros;s of the world control that party. Not the same.

[Guest]

Classical Liberalism is not today's American "welfare liberalism".

"Classical liberalism is a philosophy committed to the ideal of limited government, constitutionalism, rule of law, due process, and liberty of individuals including freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and free markets.

Classical liberalism developed in the 19th century in Europe, and the United States. Although classical liberalism built on ideas that had already developed by the end of the 18th century, it advocated a specific kind of society, government and public policy required as a result of the Industrial Revolution and urbanization. .......

...It drew on the economics of Adam Smith, a psychological understanding of individual liberty, natural law and utilitarianism, and a belief in progress. Classical liberals established political parties that were called "liberal", although in the United States classical liberalism came to dominate both existing major political parties. There was a revival of interest in classical liberalism in the 20th century led by Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman.

Some call the late 19th century development of classical liberalism "neo-classical liberalism," which argued for government to be as small as possible in order to allow the exercise of individual freedom, while some refer to all liberalism before the 20th century as classical liberalism.[6] Libertarianism is a modern form of neo-classical liberalism.[7]

The term classical liberalism was applied in retrospect to distinguish earlier 19th-century liberalism from the newer social liberalism. Some conservatives and right-libertarians use the term classical liberalism to describe their belief in the primacy of economic freedom and minimal government.

...Classical liberalism places a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty. This forms the philosophical basis for laissez-faire public policy. According to Alan Ryan, the ideology of the original classical liberals argued against direct democracy, where law is made by majority vote by citizens, "for there is nothing in the bare idea of majority rule to show that majorities will always respect the rights of property or maintain rule of law.".........

.....According to Anthony Quinton, classical liberals believe that "an unfettered market" is the most efficient mechanism to satisfy human needs and channel resources to their most productive uses: they "are more suspicious than conservatives of all but the most minimal government." ........

.....Classical liberalism holds that individual rights are natural, inherent, or inalienable, and exist independently of government. Thomas Jefferson called these inalienable rights: "...rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." For classical liberalism, rights are of a negative nature—rights that require that other individuals (and governments) refrain from interfering with individual liberty, whereas social liberalism (also called modern liberalism or welfare liberalism) holds that individuals have a right to be provided with certain benefits or services by others.

Unlike social liberals, classical liberals are "hostile to the welfare state."[17] They do not have an interest in material equality but only in "equality before the law". Classical liberalism is critical of social liberalism and takes offense at group rights being pursued at the expense of individual rights."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

[Guest]

I no longer have a point...

Thank you for asking and if anyone will listen I would be glad to answer.

I didn't come on here to argue a point... I didn't come on here to prove who had the better president! People would be surprised to know how little I care about the arguments they are having. Yes *sigh* I got hooked in the middle them, but I digress....

What I care about and posted on in the beginning were....

How do you feel about the SS and Medicare issue? I've heard some of the republicans say they want to do away with it. I posted links to that affect. (no, I'm not trying to put the republicans down and I don't want to debate who caused what) We can point fingers all day and it would prove NOTHING. Both parties have made mistakes. Did they do it to run the country in the ditch?? Of course not. OK.. I digress again.... People here want to support or put down Mr. Obama. I don't care *shrug* I care about me and my money!

I was very upset about the debt ceiling issue. I didn't give much thought to the republicans turning their backs on their own plans, until my 401K start bleeding! NOW I care!

As to who made the bigger debt??? You know what??? the debt has been going up since the beginning of time and until someone told me it was going up... I didn't even know, nor in all honesty, did I care. Where I live we were hiring, mfg was hiring, white collar was hiring, my husband can't hire enough people... Mfg was up, car sales were up, the stock market was going up... I think you get the picture. Now... congress gets in a fight to prove how bad it is.... Well guess what folks... Market is down, orders in mfg are going away, people are afraid to shop. I don't care what you think about Mr. Obama. I don't care that his parents gave him a middle name that bothers you! I care about me, my money and my children....

A little history... I liked Mr. Bush. I didn't like the wars, but I did like him. I liked him better then Gore. Mr. Obama wasn't my first choice but I wasn't crazy about Ms. Palin and he did promise to get us out of the wars... He didn't! I agree with some of these people more then they know. But as soon as they know you are "liberal" they want to argue!

Do they really believe EVERYTHING their candidate did was right? really? Because I don't. And no don't insult me for that because they are all human!

I would like to post my REAL concerns again... and get honest discussions. Would it be too much? I would like to REALLY discuss the points without trying to prove someone wrong.

I don't agree with everything everyone says... but I have changed my mind on many things just by reading and listening. I read Mr. Becks book and changed my mind about gun control.

When I am screaming PROVE ME WRONG!!!! I really mean it. Show me what I don't know! I was trying to make someone mad enough to prove me wrong. All they want to do it talk about how horrible Mr. Obama is. Really??? Because I really don't get some of this. I must be missing something.

Do you know since I started posting these nonsnense stuff... three people have asked me what I want... and thank you.

Could we all put down our weapons and discuss?

Oh and BTW. The chirping on the other thread was REALLY funny... I love that!!! I love the humor in the threads. I get it!

[Guest]

I am sorry...I missed the links to " I've heard some of the republicans say they want to do away with it. I posted links to that affect."

Can you repost them or summarize what Republican said they want to DO AWAY with SS and medicaire !

Thank you

[Guest]

This forum wears me out....

It really does take my energy away! I'm trying to understand. Every question isn't a challenge. Sometimes it's just a question. I don't care how anyone feels about Obama.

OK... Obama has a different last name. Forget about the race card as he is half white. He didn't end the war. Whatever you want to say... and as with any president... You are RIGHT!!!!

Now.... Can we go on. Can we discuss this? Mr. Bush said he knew where Mr. Obama was coming from. He said he had lofty goals as well and no one knows until they get into office how hard it is.

You are ALL right!!! Now.. *sigh* can we discuss? Can people understand that free thinkers really can see both sides if it's presented and sometimes we can change our minds.

I've seen many of us on here and no one will believe that we are listening. While we may not always agree with you... we can learn at least where you are coming from .

They have done studies on the brain... We are wire differently... Liberals will be liberals and conservatives will be conservatives. But we can still try to see the other side. Or at least that's what I want to do.

[Guest]

This forum wears me out....

It really does take my energy away! I'm trying to understand. Every question isn't a challenge. Sometimes it's just a question. I don't care how anyone feels about Obama.

OK... Obama has a different last name. Forget about the race card as he is half white. He didn't end the war. Whatever you want to say... and as with any president... You are RIGHT!!!!

Now.... Can we go on. Can we discuss this? Mr. Bush said he knew where Mr. Obama was coming from. He said he had lofty goals as well and no one knows until they get into office how hard it is.

You are ALL right!!! Now.. *sigh* can we discuss? Can people understand that free thinkers really can see both sides if it's presented and sometimes we can change our minds.

I've seen many of us on here and no one will believe that we are listening. While we may not always agree with you... we can learn at least where you are coming from .

They have done studies on the brain... We are wire differently... Liberals will be liberals and conservatives will be conservatives. But we can still try to see the other side. Or at least that's what I want to do.

Can you supply the links to the Republicans calling for doing away with SS and medicaire ?????

[Guest]

This thread seems aimless to say the least. Founding fathers?

[Guest]

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2088599,00.html

http://chestertontribune.com/Business/republican_leader_pledges_to_cut.htm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqScuGug_6U&feature=youtu.be

I read one person's response that he was OK with it because he was locked in at 55... Then my question was.. Who was going to fund it if people 55 and younger were not paying in.

I question why they don't take the cap off. The cap is at $106.000... If they take the cap off, that was help as well. Telling stories out of school, but my husband makes more then $106,000 and says he wouldn't care if the cap was off.

I personally like Ron Paul (no I don't wan to hear from the Ron Paul haters) He doesn't want to do away with is but has suggested a plan that people can decide for themselves if they want to opt in or not. How would people feel about that?

To the admins... Please give me some leeway in this thread as it is my thread and I am the one going off topic... please... I have someone who will discuss... and I appreciate it.

[Guest]

What has this do do with the Founding Father's Liberalism?

[Guest]

The Republicans want to break the Medicare covenant we’ve had in place since 1965.

The covenant is simple and fair. Americans work all their lives, pay their taxes, provide for their families, and then get to retire with dignity. Medicare provides us with medical care in our later years, after we’ve paid for it all our lives through taxes.

Now Republicans want to take away Medicare’s guarantee of care from anyone who turns 65 more than ten years from now. And they aren’t even doing it to pay down the deficit (it wouldn’t help much anyway). Because, according to the Congressional Budget Office, their big plan wouldn’t cut the deficit or debt over the next ten years.

No, they’re doing it to cut taxes dramatically for the richest Americans, which are already near historic lows. And they’re doing it by replacing Medicare’s guarantee of care with vouchers that will only guarantee big profits for their friends in Big Insurance. It’s both immoral and fiscally irresponsible.

There’s only one way to understand the Republicans’ budget plan—voted for by all but four House Republicans. It’s a naked, unapologetic attack on American working families for the sake of Big Insurance and the richest of the rich.

It abolishes Medicare’s guarantee of medical care for Americans over 65, throwing them at the feet of Big Insurance.
It uses that money to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans below their already historic lows—down to 25%.
It leads to bigger debts and deficits over the next decade, according to the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

After we fought long and hard to get health insurance for millions more working Americans, Republicans want to take it away at the end of our working lives. It’s pulling the rug out from under all the hard work we achieved on health care reform.

[Guest]

The Republicans want to break the Medicare covenant we’ve had in place since 1965.

The covenant is simple and fair. Americans work all their lives, pay their taxes, provide for their families, and then get to retire with dignity. Medicare provides us with medical care in our later years, after we’ve paid for it all our lives through taxes.

Now Republicans want to take away Medicare’s guarantee of care from anyone who turns 65 more than ten years from now. And they aren’t even doing it to pay down the deficit (it wouldn’t help much anyway). Because, according to the Congressional Budget Office, their big plan wouldn’t cut the deficit or debt over the next ten years.

No, they’re doing it to cut taxes dramatically for the richest Americans, which are already near historic lows. And they’re doing it by replacing Medicare’s guarantee of care with vouchers that will only guarantee big profits for their friends in Big Insurance. It’s both immoral and fiscally irresponsible.

There’s only one way to understand the Republicans’ budget plan—voted for by all but four House Republicans. It’s a naked, unapologetic attack on American working families for the sake of Big Insurance and the richest of the rich.

It abolishes Medicare’s guarantee of medical care for Americans over 65, throwing them at the feet of Big Insurance.
It uses that money to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans below their already historic lows—down to 25%.
It leads to bigger debts and deficits over the next decade, according to the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

After we fought long and hard to get health insurance for millions more working Americans, Republicans want to take it away at the end of our working lives. It’s pulling the rug out from under all the hard work we achieved on health care reform.
Oh yea, Republicans are doing all these evil things knowing that the elders of this land do the majority of the voting. What kind:rolleyes:of snake oil are you selling?

[Guest]

The Republicans want to break the Medicare covenant we’ve had in place since 1965.

The covenant is simple and fair. Americans work all their lives, pay their taxes, provide for their families, and then get to retire with dignity. Medicare provides us with medical care in our later years, after we’ve paid for it all our lives through taxes.

Now Republicans want to take away Medicare’s guarantee of care from anyone who turns 65 more than ten years from now. And they aren’t even doing it to pay down the deficit (it wouldn’t help much anyway). Because, according to the Congressional Budget Office, their big plan wouldn’t cut the deficit or debt over the next ten years.

No, they’re doing it to cut taxes dramatically for the richest Americans, which are already near historic lows. And they’re doing it by replacing Medicare’s guarantee of care with vouchers that will only guarantee big profits for their friends in Big Insurance. It’s both immoral and fiscally irresponsible.

There’s only one way to understand the Republicans’ budget plan—voted for by all but four House Republicans. It’s a naked, unapologetic attack on American working families for the sake of Big Insurance and the richest of the rich.

It abolishes Medicare’s guarantee of medical care for Americans over 65, throwing them at the feet of Big Insurance.
It uses that money to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans below their already historic lows—down to 25%.
It leads to bigger debts and deficits over the next decade, according to the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

After we fought long and hard to get health insurance for millions more working Americans, Republicans want to take it away at the end of our working lives. It’s pulling the rug out from under all the hard work we achieved on health care reform.

You see... This is what scares me. I read somewhere that the insurance companies were behind it, but I could never find that to be true.

I would like to know who the four republicans were who voted against it. (I'll google it) I would like to look at them closer. I know I won't agree with everything they stand for... No one will... but right now my concern is my health care and my money.

I don't understand why the republicans aren't more concerned about this. There have got to be republicans who don't want to kill these programs that they could vote for and still stay with party lines if that is important to them.

[Guest]

angiefox10, the problem, at least to me, is that it seems like you are trying to have one big continuous discussion in many different threads. That isn't how it works. Not everyone reads every thread that is posted.

I may just see a title that interests me and read that particular discussion. If there are questions or comments you posted in other discussions, those aren't necessarily relavent to every thread.

Maybe that is why some of the things you are posting seem a little disjointed. I mean that in the kindest way. It just doesn't make sense to post something and make comments regarding a previous discussion that I, and perhaps others, have no knowledge of what you are talking about.

This thread you started is about the Founding Fathers being liberal. You didn't provide any links to discuss or read. Now it has diverted to a discussion about Republicans and Medicare. It is impossible to follow what you are trying to say.

[Guest]

angiefox10, the problem, at least to me, is that it seems like you are trying to have one big continuous discussion in many different threads. That isn't how it works. Not everyone reads every thread that is posted.

I may just see a title that interests me and read that particular discussion. If there are questions or comments you posted in other discussions, those aren't necessarily relavent to every thread.

Maybe that is why some of the things you are posting seem a little disjointed. I mean that in the kindest way. It just doesn't make sense to post something and make comments regarding a previous discussion that I, and perhaps others, have no knowledge of what you are talking about.

This thread you started is about the Founding Fathers being liberal. You didn't provide any links to discuss or read. Now it has diverted to a discussion about Republicans and Medicare. It is impossible to follow what you are trying to say.

Amen. Thanks for saying what I couldn't express.

[Guest]

angiefox10, the problem, at least to me, is that it seems like you are trying to have one big continuous discussion in many different threads. That isn't how it works. Not everyone reads every thread that is posted.

I may just see a title that interests me and read that particular discussion. If there are questions or comments you posted in other discussions, those aren't necessarily relavent to every thread.

Maybe that is why some of the things you are posting seem a little disjointed. I mean that in the kindest way. It just doesn't make sense to post something and make comments regarding a previous discussion that I, and perhaps others, have no knowledge of what you are talking about.

This thread you started is about the Founding Fathers being liberal. You didn't provide any links to discuss or read. Now it has diverted to a discussion about Republicans and Medicare. It is impossible to follow what you are trying to say.

You are right and I do understand that.

That wasn't what I was trying to do... In fact, what I did was go on a rant and you (unfortunately) got in the middle of it. There are people on the thread who don't want to discuss the subjects but want to be right. So no matter what I post, even when I agree with them, they will argue. I found it so frustrating that I just posted to give them something to argue with... who knew that a couple of you would come on and actually want to know what I wanted to talk about????

I don't want to argue.. I want to exchange ideas...

Most of this stuff I really don't care about. I don't really care if our founding fathers were liberal or conservative, or who wrote the pledge of allegiance... but I was tried of arguing with people who are just on here to argue. So... I went on a rant. I apologize to everyone who to caught up in the middle of it.

The people I am referring to, can be right... I don't care. But to me, most of these topics are not right or wrong issues...

Thank you for you input.

[Guest]

You are right BTK....I am shocked by anyone who feels that liberals and conservatives or Democrats and Republicans are the same as they were, say in the 60's !

I was very active in the Democrat party in the 60's and early 70's but left as they sped hell bent to the hard left....not my cup of tea and today, the Soros;s of the world control that party. Not the same.

JFK was kinda conservative.

[Guest]

You are right BTK....I am shocked by anyone who feels that liberals and conservatives or Democrats and Republicans are the same as they were, say in the 60's !
Today Ronnie wouldn't even make it out of the primary. Way to liberal.


I was very active in the Democrat party in the 60's and early 70's but left as they sped hell bent to the hard left....not my cup of tea and today, the Soros;s of the world control that party. Not the same.

Ya, and the Coke brothers don't control the republicans? When Coke says jump the Wisconsin Governor simply asks "How hi".

[Guest]

--whispers-- Do you mean the Koch brothers?

[Guest]

Ya, and the Coke brothers don't control the republicans? When Coke says jump the Wisconsin Governor simply asks "How hi".

The quote you attribute to me IS NOT my quote. In your rendition there is a reference, I suppose, to Regan...WHICH IS NOT IN MY ORIGINAL POST.

Why is that ?

[Guest]

It looks like debanddon changed your quote, Bucco. That is absolutely wrong by any and all standards.

[Guest]

Ya, and the Coke brothers don't control the republicans? When Coke says jump the Wisconsin Governor simply asks "How hi".

And when Warren Buffet decides to shore up Obama's re-election campaign by putting $5 billion into Bank of America knowing it is considered by the government to be "too big to fail"....and we taxpayers have the liens against us to make sure Buffet and BOA will come out just fine....

"NEW YORK -- The multi-billion dollar capital injection that Bank of America said it's getting from Warren Buffett's company is an extremely safe investment, experts said Thursday -- but not because Bank of America is a strong company.

Berkshire Hathaway's investment is safe, these finance experts said, because the government has the bank's back.

Although government regulators insist the era of bank bailouts is over, many who study the financial industry say the nation's biggest banks are still too big to fail, meaning they must be rescued by the government when they face potentially fatal trouble in order to prevent a broader collapse of the financial system...."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/25/warren-buffett-bank-america-too-big-to-fail_n_937118.html

[Guest]

He has been fighting IRS for 9 years. Why don't he just pay his taxes?
http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/08/warren-buffetts.html

[Guest]

I can't believe there is even a question as to which side the wealthy are on. No HONEST person would say any party other than the Republicans.

Simply look at what the republicans are willing to fight for ( mean really fight for). 1) Tax cuts for the Wealthy 2) Lower estate taxes for multi million dollar estates. 3) Lower Corporate taxes. 4) Not closing loop holes for the wealthy.

You have to give them credit. They are so skilled at spinning their agenda they are able to convince middle class folks to vote against their best economic interest. Here is my favorite: Lower our (the rich) taxes because if you do we'll create more jobs for you. Soon, it'll be "We shouldn't have to pay any taxes because we are the job creaters".

What gets me the most is most republicans are not rich. Many (if not most) are republicans because of social issues like abortion, guns or bibles. Do you see your bought and paid for republicans really fighting for any of these issues? No, they just use these issues to get their base all excited but when they get into office they do nothing about it.

Sorry I misspelled "Koch".

[Guest]

So there are no wealthy Democrats?

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/116489-wealthy-lawmakers-increased-their-riches-as-economy-sputtered-in-2009-

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/35298

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richest_American_politicians

http://www.rollcall.com/features/Guide-to-Congress_2009/guide/-38181-1.html

http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2010/09/16/list-of-31-democrats-who-signed-the-letter-insisting-on-tax-cuts-for-the-rich/

[Guest]

More links!!!!....I need them!!!!.....I have to have my links!!!!!...Quick, before I start seeing spiders!!!!! :cus:

[Guest]

I can't believe there is even a question as to which side the wealthy are on. No HONEST person would say any party other than the Republicans.

Simply look at what the republicans are willing to fight for ( mean really fight for). 1) Tax cuts for the Wealthy 2) Lower estate taxes for multi million dollar estates. 3) Lower Corporate taxes. 4) Not closing loop holes for the wealthy.

You have to give them credit. They are so skilled at spinning their agenda they are able to convince middle class folks to vote against their best economic interest. Here is my favorite: Lower our (the rich) taxes because if you do we'll create more jobs for you. Soon, it'll be "We shouldn't have to pay any taxes because we are the job creaters".

What gets me the most is most republicans are not rich. Many (if not most) are republicans because of social issues like abortion, guns or bibles. Do you see your bought and paid for republicans really fighting for any of these issues? No, they just use these issues to get their base all excited but when they get into office they do nothing about it.

Sorry I misspelled "Koch".

You don't know a thing about why most republicans are republicans. If you did, you would know we are so because we understand the long-range outcomes of being nationally bankrupt, insolvent, fiscally irresponsible, and printers of money not worth the paper it's printed on. With this continued destruction, we soon won't have a nation anymore.

Democrats refuse to admit to the old adage "Whoever owns your debt owns YOU." We are "owned", and that translates to "slavery".

All of our founders, veterans and military heroes of the past did not stand up to tyranny and fight for our liberty so we could be ENSLAVED!

[Guest]

More links!!!!....I need them!!!!.....I have to have my links!!!!!...Quick, before I start seeing spiders!!!!! :cus:
Do you favor executive or championship?:undecided:

[Guest]

You don't know a thing about why most republicans are republicans. If you did, you would know we are so because we understand the long-range outcomes of being nationally bankrupt, insolvent, fiscally irresponsible, and printers of money not worth the paper it's printed on. With this continued destruction, we soon won't have a nation anymore.

Democrats refuse to admit to the old adage "Whoever owns your debt owns YOU." We are "owned", and that translates to "slavery".

All of our founders, veterans and military heroes of the past did not stand up to tyranny and fight for our liberty so we could be ENSLAVED!

Yes Massa.....I just don't gets it....:cus:

[Guest]

[QUOTE=buggyone;386444]The Republicans want to break the Medicare covenant we’ve had in place since 1965.

The covenant is simple and fair. Americans work all their lives, pay their taxes, provide for their families, and then get to retire with dignity. Medicare provides us with medical care in our later years, after we’ve paid for it all our lives through taxes.

Now Republicans want to take away Medicare’s guarantee of care from anyone who turns 65 more than ten years from now. And they aren’t even doing it to pay down the deficit (it wouldn’t help much anyway). Because, according to the Congressional Budget Office, their big plan wouldn’t cut the deficit or debt over the next ten years.

No, they’re doing it to cut taxes dramatically for the richest Americans, which are already near historic lows. And they’re doing it by replacing Medicare’s guarantee of care with vouchers that will only guarantee big profits for their friends in Big Insurance. It’s both immoral and fiscally irresponsible.

There’s only one way to understand the Republicans’ budget plan—voted for by all but four House Republicans. It’s a naked, unapologetic attack on American working families for the sake of Big Insurance and the richest of the rich.

It abolishes Medicare’s guarantee of medical care for Americans over 65, throwing them at the feet of Big Insurance.
It uses that money to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans below their already historic lows—down to 25%.
It leads to bigger debts and deficits over the next decade, according to the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

After we fought long and hard to get health insurance for millions more working Americans, Republicans want to take it away at the end of ou


This is all Democratic spin and unfortunately not factually based. Republicans want to address medicare resturctring for those below 55. Enough said

Obama claims he can get us out of this economic mess by taxing billionaires and millionaires. However he fails to acknowledge that he is after those making $250,000 and above in the beginning and also will have to continue downward; especially since fully 50% of taxpayers don't pay taxes. He is also proposing an additional VAT tax.

I have cut the stats, etc short because bottom line after all Obama's stimulus packages, etc the economy has not recovered and three years into his presidency growth is less than 1%. Reagan walked into a worse economic mess and three years after his tax cuts and business policies the economy was humming at 8% . Please please see Obama's failings policies for what they are. Obama is not and never has been capable to handling this office.

[Guest]

[QUOTE=buggyone;386444]The Republicans want to break the Medicare covenant we’ve had in place since 1965.

The covenant is simple and fair. Americans work all their lives, pay their taxes, provide for their families, and then get to retire with dignity. Medicare provides us with medical care in our later years, after we’ve paid for it all our lives through taxes.

Now Republicans want to take away Medicare’s guarantee of care from anyone who turns 65 more than ten years from now. And they aren’t even doing it to pay down the deficit (it wouldn’t help much anyway). Because, according to the Congressional Budget Office, their big plan wouldn’t cut the deficit or debt over the next ten years.

No, they’re doing it to cut taxes dramatically for the richest Americans, which are already near historic lows. And they’re doing it by replacing Medicare’s guarantee of care with vouchers that will only guarantee big profits for their friends in Big Insurance. It’s both immoral and fiscally irresponsible.

There’s only one way to understand the Republicans’ budget plan—voted for by all but four House Republicans. It’s a naked, unapologetic attack on American working families for the sake of Big Insurance and the richest of the rich.

It abolishes Medicare’s guarantee of medical care for Americans over 65, throwing them at the feet of Big Insurance.
It uses that money to cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans below their already historic lows—down to 25%.
It leads to bigger debts and deficits over the next decade, according to the independent, nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

After we fought long and hard to get health insurance for millions more working Americans, Republicans want to take it away at the end of ou


This is all Democratic spin and unfortunately not factually based. Republicans want to address medicare resturctring for those below 55. Enough said

Obama claims he can get us out of this economic mess by taxing billionaires and millionaires. However he fails to acknowledge that he is after those making $250,000 and above in the beginning and also will have to continue downward; especially since fully 50% of taxpayers don't pay taxes. He is also proposing an additional VAT tax.

I have cut the stats, etc short because bottom line after all Obama's stimulus packages, etc the economy has not recovered and three years into his presidency growth is less than 1%. Reagan walked into a worse economic mess and three years after his tax cuts and business policies the economy was humming at 8% . Please please see Obama's failings policies for what they are. Obama is not and never has been capable to handling this office.

Ain't that the truth!!!

[Guest]

to DEBANDDON...

In my post #4 on this thread this is what Isaid....

"You are right BTK....I am shocked by anyone who feels that liberals and conservatives or Democrats and Republicans are the same as they were, say in the 60's !

I was very active in the Democrat party in the 60's and early 70's but left as they sped hell bent to the hard left....not my cup of tea and today, the Soros;s of the world control that party. Not the same."

In your post #23, you said that I said this...

"Originally Posted by Bucco
You are right BTK....I am shocked by anyone who feels that liberals and conservatives or Democrats and Republicans are the same as they were, say in the 60's !
Today Ronnie wouldn't even make it out of the primary. Way to liberal.


I was very active in the Democrat party in the 60's and early 70's but left as they sped hell bent to the hard left....not my cup of tea and today, the Soros;s of the world control that party. Not the same.

These are NOT the same quote and I would like to know publicly why you changed it ????? Does not matter the degree...why would someone change anothers quote ?????

[Guest]

DEBANDDON....

Still waiting on a response on my above post !!

[Guest]

to DEBANDDON...

In my post #4 on this thread this is what Isaid....

"You are right BTK....I am shocked by anyone who feels that liberals and conservatives or Democrats and Republicans are the same as they were, say in the 60's !

I was very active in the Democrat party in the 60's and early 70's but left as they sped hell bent to the hard left....not my cup of tea and today, the Soros;s of the world control that party. Not the same."

In your post #23, you said that I said this...

"Originally Posted by Bucco
You are right BTK....I am shocked by anyone who feels that liberals and conservatives or Democrats and Republicans are the same as they were, say in the 60's !
Today Ronnie wouldn't even make it out of the primary. Way to liberal.


I was very active in the Democrat party in the 60's and early 70's but left as they sped hell bent to the hard left....not my cup of tea and today, the Soros;s of the world control that party. Not the same.

These are NOT the same quote and I would like to know publicly why you changed it ????? Does not matter the degree...why would someone change anothers quote ?????

Bucco,
I'm sorry but I think you are confused. I have no ideas what you're talking about. Is that public enough for you. :boxing2:

[Guest]

Bucco,
I'm sorry but I think you are confused. I have no ideas what you're talking about. Is that public enough for you. :boxing2:

"Today Ronnie wouldn't even make it out of the primary. Way to liberal."


This is the line that Bucco was talking about that was added to his post that you quoted.

(It was post #20)

[Guest]

"Today Ronnie wouldn't even make it out of the primary. Way to liberal."


This is the line that Bucco was talking about that was added to his post that you quoted.

(It was post #20)

thank you. I suppose for some it is not important but it is to me.

Thanks

[Guest]

Isn't lying about what your political adversary said the quintessential ploy of the modern liberal, and isn't this latest example a perfect illustration of the species?

[Guest]

Isn't lying about what your political adversary said the quintessential ploy of the modern liberal, and isn't this latest example a perfect illustration of the species?

Yep, must be on the list of their hero, Alinsky.

[Guest]

Isn't lying about what your political adversary said the quintessential ploy of the modern liberal, and isn't this latest example a perfect illustration of the species?

RICHIE...all I know is that I never ever thought on this forum that anyone would or could do something like that. I wish I could figure out how it could happen accidentally but I cannot thus I hope those who find it to their benefit to change others words on here might explain.

Seems to me that if you can do something like that...well......but those who displayed it simply passed if off as a little dumb thing. The actual change was not that great but the thought that anyone could do that...well...got to wonder what kind of neighbors you might have

This political talk is not that important to me to reduce myself to that level.

[Guest]

RICHIE...all I know is that I never ever thought on this forum that anyone would or could do something like that. I wish I could figure out how it could happen accidentally but I cannot thus I hope those who find it to their benefit to change others words on here might explain.

Seems to me that if you can do something like that...well......but those who displayed it simply passed if off as a little dumb thing. The actual change was not that great but the thought that anyone could do that...well...got to wonder what kind of neighbors you might have

This political talk is not that important to me to reduce myself to that level.

It is not worth getting upset over when you realize it was done by a progressive liberal or as that famous communist thug called them "useful idiots"

[Guest]

It is not worth getting upset over when you realize it was done by a progressive liberal or as that famous communist thug called them "useful idiots"

Left, right or whatever.....my comments on the moderators was pretty negative because of this and a few other things happening.

Things like this speak to the character of the poster....I dont mind trading comments on issues, but once I meet someone that can do something like this, that is it for me !!!

[Guest]

When I saw what had happened to your post days ago, Bucco, I flagged it and sent a note to the administrator. It either didn't go through or it wasn't of importance. Either way, it seems to have been ignored since you have mentioned it several times.

This seriously needs to be addressed by the owner/moderators/administrator. It isn't that your words are being misunderstood or twisted, someone is adding complete sentences to a quote and attributing those words to you that you didn't say. That is beyond wrong. It is beyond lying.

I have never, not for one second, thought I'd have to double check my words on this forum to make sure someone hasn't changed what I've said. That should have been addressed immediately.

[Guest]

Just a question of protocol....

Often times, I edit a quoted section by underlining or bolding a specific portion of the post... Sometimes, I edit a long post to only include the specific statement I am responding to, such as:

"... we r e wefrwerfw wer wer werwer we"

This is an acceptable practice, right ?? I don't add words or sentences to anyone's quote.

[Guest]

What is being discussed here is the fact that Debanddon fabricated a quote and attributed it to Bucco. This is unforgivable and should result in his expulsion, if this were my forum.

"clipping" a poster's quote, but not changing or adding your words to it, because you just want to discuss that portion of a poster's quote is not usually a problem.

[Guest]

This issue is being reviewed.

[Guest]

This issue has been addressed between user and admin.