Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Although, there is MUCH I wouldn't agree with, especially with this character, I liked what he said at the end of the interview (fast forward to 9:17).
Many tea partiers may not realize it, but many of them people, certain factions among them have demonized as "socialist nazis" in fact are well aware of the problems with our government.
In fact they have been aware of this and have been organizing well before Paul reintroduced the tea party.
There will always be disagreements but it is possible to find common ground on certain issues.
Well Kovert, I applaud your efforts to build bridges and find commonalities as it is a really hard thing to get across to people. Whats more is that if people were to stand back and look at policy issues from a politically philosophical view, they would probably discover they have more in common with those they oppose than they might admit. No one, not even those we share a political philosophy with will agree with us 100% and to frame things into such absolute terms is not only unreasonable but just silly.
I for one don't care if you held up a piece of information from Adolf Hitler that said wiping ones backside with toilet paper is hygienic, I won't use a stick just because Hitler endorsed TP. Whether its the Huffington Post, FOX, or Capt. Crunch, if the information is reasonable and plausible on its face, then I'll work with that.
Of course it is a heck of a lot harder to sell beer and peanuts at a chess match than it is at a football game.
Well Kovert, I applaud your efforts to build bridges and find commonalities as it is a really hard thing to get across to people. Whats more is that if people were to stand back and look at policy issues from a politically philosophical view, they would probably discover they have more in common with those they oppose than they might admit. No one, not even those we share a political philosophy with will agree with us 100% and to frame things into such absolute terms is not only unreasonable but just silly.
I for one don't care if you held up a piece of information from Adolf Hitler that said wiping ones backside with toilet paper is hygienic, I won't use a stick just because Hitler endorsed TP. Whether its the Huffington Post, FOX, or Capt. Crunch, if the information is reasonable and plausible on its face, then I'll work with that.
Of course it is a heck of a lot harder to sell beer and peanuts at a chess match than it is at a football game.
Thanks Tn, glad to see you're back.
Frankly I don' think 300 million people neatly conform to the worldview that lunatic fringe media disc jockeys and their magical chalkboards keep pushing on people.
There are many areas that can find agreement across the spectrum, such as sometimes the states and municipal governments can do a more effective job in certain instances than the federal gubbermint.
"Small businesses, entrepreneurs and innovators are bearing an unfair burden as the government saddles them with mounting regulations and their concomitant compliance costs, which have only grown in the aftermath of the financial crisis.
Don't believe me? My source is the Obama Administration. A 2010 study by President Obama's U.S. Small Business Administration's Office of Advocacy, authored by Lafayette College economists Nicole Crain and Mark Crain, describes the plight of small business. According to the research, small businesses with fewer than 20 employees incur regulatory costs 42 percent greater than firms with between 20 and 499 employees. Furthermore, small businesses pay costs 36 percent greater costs per employee than firms with more than 500 employees. SBA found that the "regulatory cost per employee for small businesses was $10,585, compared to $7,454 for medium firms and $7,755 for large firms.
It's time for the Obama administration and Congress to shift course and approach policy from the view of those looking to start or expand a company."
By the way did you know that not only was Ms. HuffPo a former right winger, but also other "socialist nazis" as the tea bangers would call them like Thom Hartmann (a former Barry Goldwater winger). Plus given that Barney, Denny, and the most outspoken of the freshmen progressives, Grayson, have frequently teamed up with Ron Paul shows the boundaries are more blurred than fringe disc jockeys and their worshipers would like.
Looks like lefties and right wingers have a lot more in common than partisan talking points would like the general public to believe.
on the surface you are right, but take the health care reform law for instance, those on the right feel the law goes way too far, and on the left they feel it doesnt go anywhere near far enough.
on the surface you are right, but take the health care reform law for instance, those on the right feel the law goes way too far, and on the left they feel it doesnt go anywhere near far enough.
I'm not of fan of the current bill, but there are provisions in it that can allow for health insurance coverage that don't violate state or individual rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kovert
So before wasting tax payer money on unnecessary lawsuits, stop being a slacker, be more conservative and efficient, and do the work to read through the 2,000 pages 1st.
If you don't like RomneyCare 2.0 aka ObammieCare, if you're not the party of no, the party of no clue, if you're for states' rights, well then you're in luck.
"Why don't you use the waiver provision to let you go set up your own plan?" the senator asked those who threaten health-care-related lawsuits. "Why would you just say you are going to sue everybody, when this bill gives you the authority and the legal counsel is on record as saying you can do it without an individual mandate?"
Many people regardless of party affiliation have a strong dissatisfaction with Capitol Hill elites.
"And unfortunately, what passes for appealing to the middle in Washington, DC has no resemblance to what actually appeals to swing voters out there in the real world beyond the beltway. In Washington, being a moderate means being for raising the retirement age and cutting benefits for Social Security. In the rest of America, fighting to preserve Social Security is a huge plus for voters. In Washington, being a moderate means being for "free trade" deals. In the rest of America, working class swing voters hate the trade deals that they know are shipping their jobs overseas. In Washington, being a moderate means being for extending all of the Bush tax cuts even those for millionaires. In the rest of America, it is those working class swing voters who don't like those kinds of tax cuts.
Most of all, being a moderate in Washington means getting along nicely with all those corporate lobbyists who keep coming to see you (and dropping off checks). In the rest of America, swing voters and base voters are completely united that Washington is too controlled by wealthy and powerful special interests, and that their power needs to be rolled back. The polling numbers on strict new lobby reforms, on rolling back the Citizens United decision, on public financing so that candidates aren't dependent on special interests for campaign cash are incredibly strong. Voters are disgusted by the kind of business as usual described in this article from Roll Call. If Democratic candidates spent their time attacking that kind of special interest funding and the attack ads being generated by corporate cash, they would have swing as well as Democratic base vote standing up and cheering. The brain-dead DC establishment still doesn't get this, of course.
But what is clear to me from the polling and focus groups I am looking at is that instead democratic candidates should take on the causes that unite and motivate both Democratic base voters and swing voters: rolling back the power of corporate special interests, standing up to the big banks and energy and insurance industries, fighting the outsourcing of jobs. The path toward a winning electoral coalition in most swing districts and states is to reject Washington centrism and embrace the values of working families in the real America."
Wonder what you'll think of this Tn, Ms. HuffPo & Pat Buchanan being on the same page about the danger of losing the middle class.
"It's a message that spans both political parties. On Morning Joe, conservative commentator Pat Buchanan expressed his support of her ideas. "It sounds like the title of a Buchanan book," he said."
Unless they are the banksters vassals, most people across the political spectrum stand against fraud and rewarding people for failure and incompetence.
"But the major foreclosure fraud scandal at bailout behemoth GMAC that ignited the current furor involved what appear to be totally bogus notaries. One GMAC employee, Jeffrey Stephan, signed thousands of affidavits and had them all notarized in Pennsylvania, even though they were being used in foreclosure cases in many different states. Since different states have different standards for notary approval, these documents should have been unacceptable in the vast majority of state courts.
That made the GMAC scandal illegal in most states. But the GMAC scandal got much worse once Stephan acknowledged that he had never actually examined the affidavits before approving them. All of Pennsylvania's notaries who signed off on the Stephans Documents were totally unreliable. They were approving fraudulent documents en masse.
The bill is an obvious attempt to bailout banks from the consequences of their own bonus-fueled shortcuts--shortcuts which are being used to slap individual American families with tens of thousands of dollars in illegal fees. President Obama has no business bailing out our biggest banks again--especially on the backs of troubled borrowers those banks are attempting to defraud. The American government shouldn't be bailing out fraud."
Perhaps one issue that both the Left and Right often agree on is opposition to the practice of eminent domain; the seizing of private property by governments, often against the wishes of the property owner.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
