[quote]The problem, however, is that along the money trail everyone dips into the till under the guise of costs rather than theft, causing costs to skyrocket and profits to diminish or artificially inflated. I'm simply asking for a economic system of greater integrity whereby prifits are real and then used for modest compensation and mostly for reinvesting in the same system that created the wealth. [/quote] You have just explained the problem with bureaucracies and explained why the
Adventure-Dude
[quote]I got corns older than you![/quote] Hmmm, I'm gonna go with eww. [e digicons]:puke:[/e]
[quote]Ever hear of Vaugn Meader? if you were not around when JFK was president probably not as he did an imitation of JFK that was spot on! And his career died when kennedy did.[/quote] My parents were weeee lil ones during JFK's presidency. I'm only 30 :)
[quote]Likewise, how come the Republicans are not leading by example? [/quote] I don't recall the Republicans stating that they were going to be the most transparent and most ethical, maybe I missed it?
[quote]I almost choked on my pizza as I read you quote from Pelosi.[/quote] I had pizza for lunch too. [e digicons]:thumbsup:[/e]
[quote]Wasn't it Obama who said his administration would be transparent, not the Democrats in congress? I don't remember hearing the Dems explicitly say that they would be transparent. Likewise, how come the Republicans are not leading by example? [/quote] "We'll turn the most closed and corrupt Congress into the most open and honest Congress," Pelosi (D-Calif.) told The Associated Press in an interview. <a href="http://www.michigandaily.com/content/pelosi-promises-integrity-civ
[quote]if that was all it was Steven, then Unions would not have sucked their hosts dry like leaches. Once they forgot they had a symbiotic and not a parasitic relationship with the companies, they lost all sight of benefits for the workers and became just another special interests that do not give a damn about the worker, only their own power.[/quote] Exactly, when a Union becomes parisitic in the relationship it actually begins to defeat the very purpose they were created for by pu
[quote]No on Life, and no on Auto - until I bought a car. but no one forced me to buy one to live either.[/quote] I thought it was the Republicans that were the party of "Anti-Choice" and the Democrats were the party of "Pro-Choice"? I guess that's only because they get to choose what our choices are?
[quote]Nevertheless, profiteering off sickness should end; and yes, by regulation if need be. [/quote] Please tell me in your mind where it is ok to make a profit and where it is not ok?
They are like someone who learned to drive a three cylinder geo metro and are now sitting in a lamborgini. Too much power they can't keep it on the road.
[quote]Immigration will eventually cover it. But I agree the system is untenable and requires a better method of pay as you go.[/quote] Interesting you say this Stevendedalus. Don't you find it ironic that the most capitalistic country (in terms length of time and quantity) is the country with the highest immigration rate? If you destroy that which was the tool to build up you have nothing to build with once it is gone. Right now many of the Mexicans and othe
[quote]The UAW funds more towards Democrats than to Republicans [/quote] 2000-2008 UAW Giving: $23.7 million to Democrats. $193,540 to Republicans LINK
[quote]Draginol never tires of orienting unions to entitlements and therefore all of whom are lazy, spoiled bastards. God forbid that anyone should want better healthcare and wages. [/quote] I'm all for that Stevendedalus, but one must also recognize there is a fine line when the Union has more control over the company than really the execs who are hired to run the company. The UAW has served it's purpose and needs to relinquish some of it's power and leeching off the dying comp
[quote]While the video does come off as blatantly byist, I do agree with some of it's points. Mainly that the UAW fucked the American auto industry and is a major reason for the fall of Detroit. But to blame it entirely on democrat mayors is over the top. Chicago has had a democratic mayor since 1931, longer then Detroit, without becoming a doughnut city. Detroit was completely reliant on the auto industry, and when it started to decline the city took a dive. Social programs and th
[quote]Where's the beef?[/quote] It's what's for dinner!
Bias or not the questions still remain.
[quote]It is high time that Obama and the other western know-it-alls simply stop recognising the mullahs as Iran's government. http://www.michaeltotten.com/2010/01/bringing-down-khamenei.php Why on earth are we, the west, propping up the "Islamic Republic" anyway? Iran's embassies in western countries should be closed and the "government" ignored. And the US should not allow representatives of the regime to attend UN meeting in New York. And that's
[quote]The reason I responded in this thread is that the video with which I responded happened to address each and every point brought out in the thread and show the hypocrisy of the right. [/quote] In posting that video, Mumblefratz, all you have done is shown that both sides are being hypocrites to which I agree. I haven't seen you state in this forum that you also see the left being hypocrites as well. Heck I remember the left screaming bloody murder about Bush because
I do find it sad that those who campaign for UHC are doing it because people are dying and then you have the same from that camp uttering death wishes against someone who has not committed a crime worthy of death?
Mumblefratz are you just merely pointing out the hypocrisy of both sides? I find it interesting how Maddow isn't talking about how the Democrats and how they treated Bush on these similar issues. Her agenda is more about calling hypocrites rather than recognizing that both sides are that and that they are getting a taste of their own medicine. Cheers!
[quote]If people like Osama or whoever is in charge now see the U.S. ha a weak President, which Obama very much is, they are even more likely to pull off a big attack. Obama doesn't even want his own administration calling people "terrorists". Of course them makes them bolder.[/quote] And why wouldn't he? That's like going into a boxing match with a professional who says they will tie their leggs together and their right arm behind their back. The pro boxer wh
[quote]you could be right but in this case it's the Muslim extremists that are time and time again doing the terrorizing. Something has to be done. It's not the white Christians or the white conservatives doing the terrorizing. [/quote] Are they Muslim extremists or extremists who happen to be Muslim? Personally I go with the latter. Remember a while back when there was a couple stories about these white guys who went to Pakistan to get training? I could remember e
[quote]I agree with AD about racial profiling. Don't get me wrong, I understand were everyone is thinking and that it is radical muslims so we should screen them, but Hitler started instituting laws against groups that people didn't trust, didn't like, or didn't care about. Once these laws were functioning he was able to institute similar laws against other groups[/quote] Exactly, it may start off as a good idea but we must often think about how it could be used against WE the people
[quote]No, Unworkable because everyone cannot be in the top 5%. It is an impossibility. And no amount of good intentions is going to change the laws of the universe.[/quote] I believe it was Margaret Thatcher that said, "The problem with Socialism is you run out of OTHER people's money." (or something similar). [quote] unworkable only because those of us with pretty good insurance and congress with Cadillac plans don't give a shit. [/quote] So Steven
[quote]pretty interesting since "he says" he's a Christian. [/quote] In the words of Inigo Montoya to Obama, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."