Taking America Back!

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
Plug to TomCat:
You have no idea who I am or what my beliefs are. You can infer, but you don't know.

By saying "intelligent conservative" you are stereotyping. Are all Conservatives unintelligent?
This is exactly that bullshit that I am talking about. Already starting the stereotyping name calling.

Plug to Max:
Far from. you are putting words into my mouth as a true Liberal does. But hey, you are just reminding me how I cannot come to LPSG and have a rational debate.
Oh the irony. Oh the rampant hypocrisy. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!

Back to TomCat:
Does this make sense? As I already said, I used to frequent the political forum a lot here but then I quit. I quit because any conversation I walked into it was full of accusations and stereotypes before they even read what I wrote. I can feel it again, right on this forum. MLB asked a question... I answered, clarified... and then all of a sudden I'm under attack and all my words are being twisted.
Wow. Paranoid persecution complex too. A perfect trifecta! :laughing:


p.s. Challenging your position is not an "accusation" or an "attack".
......And they're your words, buddy. Nobody's "twisting" them.
 
Last edited:

FuzzyKen

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Posts
2,045
Media
0
Likes
98
Points
193
Gender
Male
In order to "Take America Back" the first things that would be necessary would be major reform to both campaign financing and to the ways that the people can be drowned out by the huge contributions of "soft money" from major corporations.

Another major problem is that those forming our original framework for government never anticipated some of the changes in how Corporations function.

The rights of the individual voter seeking representation has been lost.

Sadly, in an attempt to protect religious freedom we gave nearly unlimited latitude to anything that represents itself as a "church" or religious institution. Many religious organizations these days are nothing more than for profit corporations masquerading as religious institutions. They have corporate structure, they deal in quantities of money that are large enough to be staggering to the imagination and they pay extremely high salaries to their executive officers.

Most of us view churches as places where people can worship in their chosen manner and also find help and sanctuary in times of personal crisis. Today we have people operating churches purchasing movie production companies, television networks, businesses, rental properties, which are all "for profit" businesses. These are then "cloaked" in the wraps of religion and the tax base for these entities are completely lost.

Today, there are ministries that seem to exist simply to solicit donations. The money donated is invested in advanced communications systems to of course solicit more donations. This is a spiral.

These same ministries do not feed, clothe, help the sick, or anything else. They exist totally under a profit making corporate structure.

They ONLY thing that they are not doing is going public for stock. If they went public, they would be subject to other rules.

- - - - -

The "dumping" of government contracts is another issue.

Some years ago General Motors bought a military supplier by the name of AM General. They manufactured predominately public transportation vehicles and Military Vehicles for the various armed forces. The Hummer H-1 was probably the best known.

General Motors through incredible mis-management ran the mark into the ground by building toys for the idle rich, and using the government contracts to finance these. The United States Government had requested changes in the H-1 to upgrade the diesel engine and to improve the performance of the vehicle in some circumstances. General Motors in violation of an existing military contract refused to do the upgrades to the Mil-Spec model, but in the final production did make these upgrades to the toys of the rich again using Government dollars to make these changes.

Because of the unhealthy relationship between GM and the United States Government there was never legal action against GM for the screw-job our Government and our troops took under this thinking.

The bottom line of this is that corporate entities receive different treatment and are rarely punished when they are in violation of contracts.

- - - - -

The elimination of "conflict of interest" between government officials and private industry or "corporations" is another area where our Country has been taken away from us.

It has been proven again and again that extremely high ranking corporate executives are appointed to or hired for positions within the Government which regulates and is supposed to protect us from the very industries from which these people originated. As a result the people are "fleeced".

One example of the "fleecing" is the drug AZT. The drug was priced outrageously by it's manufacturer in the beginning. The reason for the drug pricing originally was stated as Research and Development Costs. It was later quietly proven that this drug was an unsuccessful chemotherapeutic agent developed under Government Paid Grants.

The corporation lied and was never prosecuted for their falsehoods. The reason being that a number of people who had formerly worked for this pharmaceutical giant were by the time the discovery took place in the employ of the FDA.

In taking things back, the idea is to have government again representing us, the genreral population of the United States of America. Currently, many of the organizations within the United States of America are instead working very hard to preserve the profits of the largest corporations in the country at the expense of the American people.

The first stop in taking back America is to initiate many investigations that start following thousands of threads of money that was paid in taxes and is through the efforts of major corporations assuring and protecting profits rather than assuring our health, our safety and our freedom.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
173
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
You have no idea who I am or what my beliefs are. You can infer, but you don't know.

By saying "intelligent conservative" you are stereotyping. Are all Conservatives unintelligent?

Oh stop it, you're a conservative. I didnt say Constitutionalist or Libertarian or Republican. I said Conservative. And let's follow along closely here, shall we? I was referring to the conservatives WE usually get HERE. You are of the intelligent type. Now, let this go before I have to retract my statement :pat:
 

B_OtterJoq

Sexy Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2006
Posts
912
Media
0
Likes
38
Points
163
Location
Minneapolis
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Oh stop it, you're a conservative. I didnt say Constitutionalist or Libertarian or Republican. I said Conservative. And let's follow along closely here, shall we? I was referring to the conservatives WE usually get HERE. You are of the intelligent type. Now, let this go before I have to retract my statement :pat:

LOL!
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
125
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
As I said before, even Greenspan has admitted that the Federal Reserve is, essentially, above the law.
Are we still listening to Alan "Irrational Exuberance" Greenspan?

“The Fact that our economical models at The Fed, the best in the world, have been wrong for fourteen straight quarters, does not mean they will not be right in the fifteenth quarter”

“In retrospect, I see nothing that we did that was inappropriate in terms of policy,”


I was referring to the conservatives WE usually get HERE. You are of the intelligent type. Now, let this go before I have to retract my statement :pat:
Yeah, well you may have jumped the gun on that. :wink:
 
Last edited:

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
325
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I did click the link and I did read it. I just don't care to stereotype an entire group just because of a name they have chosen.

It looks like you have.

Are you one of those people that would accuse me of being racist because I didn't vote for Obama?

I wasn't "stereotyping" anyone, and I have no clue as to whom you vote(d) for nor why. I'm not sure you and I have even interacted before; if we did, it's lost in the misty swirls of my lousy short-term memory.

My sole contribution to this thread has been on the identical nature of the "Take back [...]" verbiage in Vermont ten-fifteen years ago when they were the first state to debate marriage equality, winding up with civil unions, and its current reincarnation. And yes, it is code.

At the time, CUs were considered deeply immoral by social conservatives and pious reactionaries because they "legitimated" LGBT partnerships; they were seen as a "gateway" to Sodom in the way they tend to see marijuana as a "gateway" to heroin.

You sorta had to be there, I guess, to let the identical verbiage between the moldy old chestnut of "Take back Vermont" and its new-and-improved "Take back America" run down the back of your neck like a cold sweat. At the time, I was living in Boston and my partner and I drove up to Montreal several times yearly, taking secondary roads through Vermont each time.

The signs "Take back Vermont" were around enough to notice, for sure: sometimes painted across entire barn roofs. The irony is that, outside people with a strong stake in the marriage equality debate, most people genuinely either didn't know or didn't care what "Take back Vermont" meant, and they presumed it was an advertisement for maple syrup :rolleyes:
 

Mensch1351

Cherished Member
Joined
Jun 21, 2006
Posts
1,166
Media
0
Likes
342
Points
303
Location
In the only other State that begins with "K"!
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
ahhhh yes -- how I long for the days prior to WWII when you had to put 20% down to buy a house (so most married couples lived with their parents or lived in rent!) Or..............was it the GOVT that decided that 14 million Veterans who had risked their lives for their country should somehow be given a "break" from the tyranny of the "haves" in order for the "sort of haves" to be able to "pursue happiness." While the Constitution might "say" all people should be treated equally ---- it's quite a lie (and has been historically for us). It took the Government to pass clean air and water regulations that would be "standardized" from State to State (political corruption and "buying" off politicians (and judges) is SOOOO much more popular in the individual States themselves -- let alone at the Federal Level. It took the FEDERAL government to outlaw child labor. It took the FEDERAL government to tell states that they must provide a means for their disabled to be given access to buildings/transportation, etc. It takes the FEDERAL government to offer relief when a STATE experiences a devastating natural disaster. It took the FEDERAL government to tell companies that they MUST put aside the monies allocated to pensions, etc. etc. For those who think the Federal Govt is the "evil empire" ----- well............I come from Pennsylvania! Show me a state that has done exceedly well in running its "own" affairs for the benefit of all its people???? If laws EFFECTING the whole country are left ONLY to the States --- well........can't you foresee a massive shift in population to those states that seem more adept at providing "fair" laws for their citizenry?

I'm not saying that the Federal Government hasn't put its nose in places where it doesn't belong. However........I also believe that a lot of what I've read in this thread relates to THOSE WHO HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE HIGH GROUND in approaching America's dilemnas. Too many just don't SEE those who have not had all the advantages of life (either given or earned) -- and those whose situations have changed so that they MUST be given a more equal playing field.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
2. GOP currently has nobody credible.

Bingo! I keep hearing the haters say they can't wait until 2012. And the whispers 'one term president'. :rolleyes: And I wonder exactly who can they nominate that isn't a total whack job? McCain knew that, that's why he nominated whack job queen Palin. The problem is you turn off every other sane person in the country when you nominate someone how can't do debates and can't do an interview that isn't on Murdoch's FixedNews propaganda outlet.