Because socialized healthcare is so horrible! You're telling me that people can get treated if they have a medical problem and it won't put them into bankruptcy! That sounds terrible! Like when my parents went into bankruptcy when I broke my arm as a child. Of course you should be bankrupt and harassed by debt collectors, why would they let a poor kid play outside?Those idiots with their three jobs, leeching off of society!

We don't even have socialized healthcare with Obamacare, but idiots like you think that we do for some reason. Probably has nothing to do with all of the ridiculous right-wing propaganda right?

We already have socialized medicine. In our socialist system, we allow people to get sick enough that they need emergency attention, and then we let them show up at the emergency room to have problems that should have been caught early treated at massive expense in their later, more severe stages. If the patient has no insurance and cannot pay, the hospital just eats it, or the government pays.

So Chicken-Little, America already has a grossly inefficient socialized health care system. It's called the emergency room, and anything Obama does is better than that.

I realize that I have had the wrong view all along. It's not that all of America wants ME to pay to raise others families. It is that all of America wants to pay to raise mine. If you are a single working parent in America today with a $15.00/hr full time job you would be a FOOL to continue slaving for that paycheck when you could just sit at home (and be just as well off financially). Why did it take me so long to figure this out. OBAMA for 2012!!!!! What line do I stand in?
Obama's campaign slogan should be "find your line 2012"

This statement is not propaganda but a COLD HARD truth.

Either you did not read any of the comments, or, you did not understand anything. Your response is incredibly juvenile and more or less proves Capitalists_Nightmare's rather blunt point.

Also, your statement is not propaganda, nor is it truth; it is simply juvenile sarcasm. An OPINION if you will. I do find it interesting how easily so many of the hardline conservatives have such a difficult time distinguishing the difference between FACTS and OPINIONS.

One must then ask - if these people cannot grasp such an elementary concept such as the difference between OPINION and FACT, how would they be able to comprehend anything ...

Anyone who HONESTLY believes that conservatives wish to deny the NEEDY of their entitlements is either naive or STUPID the GOP side of this issue as stated by Paul Ryan IS IN FACT that there need to be cuts on FRAUD AND ABUSE in the entitlement section.
It is interesting that the very same voices from the left who spew hate towards those who earn profits from their investments and hard work as "undeserving" seem to believe that those who lie about their assets and and living conditions on official government douments are derserving.
I know for a fact from family members one who worked at a bank and saw repeated payroll,unemployment and welfare checks from the saME PERSON DEPOSITED WEEK AFTER WEE... i KNOW A WELFARE WORKER WHO proved a receipent drove his new Cadilac repeatedly to the welfare office and yet claimed he owned "NO CAR" on his application..
Or how about those women who have their "men" sneak out the back door when the welfare worker comes to followup on the application.
Those who condone such "lifestyles" do in fact have as much a character flaw in them as those who are in actuality stealing from the tax payers by lying in order to receive what they do not deserve.. BUT they consider it evil for the "rich" ot have more than they "deserve".
Makes you wonder about the quality of moral values fromn those on the left...

AND they want to run this country by shutting the opposition up...

For the record the above is based on information I received from friends and family who were IN FACT actually involved... unlike the emotional jive coming from some on the left.

So if we go by the statement made by Obama in the currentDemocratic Party letter each American should have equal opportunity to achieve the American Dream... that we all look out for one another (and apparently work hard and achieve that dream then we can be taxed extra so those who didn't achieve the dream can share in our success)

In order to accomplish this it looks like there is hudge oppostition to those who are legal voters showing they are legally able to vote..
(They have photo ID in Mexico in order to vote... I guess it is too much to ask for in the USA.).
Maybe because they expect more faud and abuses at the polling places...in order to assure a Democratic Party victory..

does anybody wonder why, when the hate begins spewing for the RICH, names like Pelosi, Soros, Tom Cruise 38 million last year, Dicaprio and Sandler 37 MIll last year and Wahlberg 27 mill NEVER seem to come up as EVIL and UNDESERVING of their wealth????

canative62, your response is incredibly disjointed and seems more like a copy-and-paste job than a personal response to the above.

Again, seems these single minded conservative don't care about reading, or empathy; They only care about themselves.

I know from experience. I have a friend that is single with 2 children and works on the weekend under the table. She gets $1000-1100 a month in spending money and $800+ in food stamps, for a total of $1900-2000 every month. Plus she is covered under Medi-Cal along with her children (which I would not qualify for) which is of huge monetary significance.

I work 6 days a week at $12/hr job, plus commission and net $1650 a month in our off season, and $2300 a month during our on season. These numbers don't lie and they are not "opinion". This is based off of raw data.

Tell me who the Fool is in the above comparisons.

Which line do I stand in?

deal with the issues...Is there fraud and abuse that needs to be cut???
Are there people cheating on welfare WHICH is stealing from the tax payers?
Do not the left spew hate toward the RICH who work hark and inest their time and money in order to reach the American Dream ALL THE WHILE IGNORING the wealth of Pelosi, Reid, SOROS, Cruise, Dicaprio, Sandler and Wahlberg?
If Obama wins this Nov. will they above lose their wealth? wille we all get to share in what they have? what will change for them? Nothing. what will change for us? JUst the right to oppose the governmnet, the right to accomplish the American Dream and the right to have a REAL say in our governmnet after the left close to door by fraud, coruption and Presidential order>...

It is only disjointed for those who are incredibly naive or stupid and follow only their official party line.

March in step don't get out of line and "we will all look out for each other"...just like Obama wants...

The sky is falling, the sky is falling.... and it's all Obama's fault, of course...
"I know from experience.." bla bla bal, yeah right...
"I work 6 days a week at $12/hr.." Well maybe you should try to improve your position....
I started out working for $.50 a hour, served in the Vietnam Con-flict, went to college on the GI Bill and when I retired, I was making over $55 an hour, then I became a Government contractor and almost doubled that. So what's your point?

redeyedrider, I agree numbers don't lie:

$1100 + 800 = $1900 * 12 months = $22,800

$12/hr * 40 hr/week * 50 weeks per year = $24,000

So are you complaining about making more money? Or are you complaining that your "friend" is committing felony tax evasion and fraud?

Also, MediCal is based on total assets not monthly income. First, this "friend" would have less than $2000 in total assets, but, regardless, based on making over $1000 per month, your "friend" must either be over 65 or working disabled. Otherwise, this "friend" would not qualify for Medi-Cal.

Let us try and stick to reality. Debating fantasy and imagination is not constructive.

Larry ,

I am simply pointing out what is happening on a larger scale by a simple personal example. I by no means am stating the facts to make a point of my situation alone, but rather to show what is going on throughout America as a whole and how easy and common it is to cheat the system. If I get a job that pays more money, that does not solve the problem as a whole. People are still being rewarded for laziness, and this appears to be where we are headed at an increasing rate.

I wish it were easy enough for me to double my salary and then just forget whats happening.

It' funny how some people support a system that breeds fraud and doesn't hold many accountable, and they boldly tow thae party line and make exuses for their failing system.

Here is a link to Costco http://shop.costco.com/about/costco-e...

They offer full medical benefits AND the guy who heats hotdogs makes $23.00 per hour. But, that is actual facts and an actual opportunity not some invented "friend" nonsense.

America is not lazy, YOU are! There are thousands and thousands of jobs available. Problem is, YOU don't seem to want to better yourself, YOU seem to want to be magically prosperous.

Have you ever thought that every hour you waste here, you are loosing at least $8.00? Probably not because if you did, you would not be IRONICALLY complaining about the malaise of others ...

Redeyedrider
notice how those on the left cannot deal with the issues, they can only attack the person?

Are there people geeting entitlements that they LIED in order to get?
Do those on the left, who condemn the "capitalists" for getting profits that the left feel the capitalist do not deserve, condemn those taking from the government on false pretenses? Where are they when it comes to condemning those TAKERS who are stealing from the tax payers?
Do those on the left who attack the RICH "capitalists" as evil, EVER mention the movie stars, athletes, or Soros or Buffet or Pelosi(she was born rich and married rich sounds like she does not deserve it) or Reid for being undeserving of their income?
Is not the issue at hand, saving Federal money by cutting losses which the GOP is trying to do by cutting fraud and abuses on entitlements?
Does that not make those on the left HYPOCRITES?
Oh thats right they need the votes of that block of governmnet dependants who rely on governmnet handouts SO instead of cuttiing fraud they raise taxes on those pursuing the American Dream that Obama CLAIMS he wants everyone to have a chance at...
Probably because he wants to TAX those who succede in order to buy more votes from those who don't.
Yet they cannot deal with the issues at hand.

I thought the issue was redeyedrider being too lazy to get a better job? If I missed something let me know.

Also, who is labeling capitalists (that you put in quotes for some odd reason) as evil but making exceptions for George Soros? Actually, who is even mentioning Soros except you?

Seriously canative62, I want to respond to you directly, but, it is like you are reading a completely different blog than the one we are commenting on. Maybe we should all at least agree as to which blog and which website we are talking about. I'll make a suggestion: how about this one!

Seriously??
from above
"Anyone who HONESTLY believes that conservatives wish to deny the NEEDY of their entitlements is either naive or STUPID the GOP side of this issue as stated by Paul Ryan IS IN FACT that there need to be cuts on FRAUD AND ABUSE in the entitlement section.
It is interesting that the very same voices from the left who spew hate towards those who earn profits from their investments and hard work as "undeserving" seem to believe that those who lie about their assets and and living conditions on official government douments are derserving.
I know for a fact from family members one who worked at a bank and saw repeated payroll,unemployment and welfare checks from the saME PERSON DEPOSITED WEEK AFTER WEE... i KNOW A WELFARE WORKER WHO proved a receipent drove his new Cadilac repeatedly to the welfare office and yet claimed he owned "NO CAR" on his application..
Or how about those women who have their "men" sneak out the back door when the welfare worker comes to followup on the application.
Those who condone such "lifestyles" do in fact have as much a character flaw in them as those who are in actuality stealing from the tax payers by lying in order to receive what they do not deserve.. BUT they consider it evil for the "rich" ot have more than they "deserve".
Makes you wonder about the quality of moral values fromn those on the left..."

YES YOU DID MISS IT... THE posts had NOTHING to do witih redeyedriders job...
But we could bring up the abuses of the unions if you want to..

the above quotes are from THIS BLOG ABOVE.

Sorry, we did not realize that the left was prohibited from discussing the abuses and fraud in the entitlement programs....
Yet they feel free to attack the GOP as not being compassionate, while their own people are abusing and defrauding the programs. Thereby cheating the ones who REALLY need it by steling the tax dollars

BY the way I suggest you try to get caught up on your reading if you want to make derogatory comments about posts that you seem to know nothing about..
Frequently the left/liberal trio attack the rich capitalists on these blogs..

By the way you are right I seem to be the only one who recognizes Soros is a capitalist billionaire who never gets attacked by the left as the other rich corporate leaders do.

Again canative62, you seem to be having a different conversation than the rest of us. I welcome you to actually join this actual conversation rather than the one that is transpiring in your imagination.

I smell a rat.

Are there people cheating on welfare WHICH is stealing from the tax payers?
Do not the left spew hate toward the RICH who work hark and inest their time and money in order to reach the American Dream ALL THE WHILE IGNORING the wealth of Pelosi, Reid, SOROS, Cruise, Dicaprio, Sandler and Wahlberg?
If Obama wins this Nov. will they above lose their wealth? wille we all get to share in what they have? what will change for them? Nothing. what will change for us? JUst the right to oppose the governmnet, the right to accomplish the American Dream and the right to have a REAL say in our governmnet after the left close to door by fraud, coruption and Presidential order>...
notice how those on the left cannot deal with the issues, they can only attack the person?

Are there people geeting entitlements that they LIED in order to get?
Do those on the left, who condemn the "capitalists" for getting profits that the left feel the capitalist do not deserve, condemn those taking from the government on false pretenses? Where are they when it comes to condemning those TAKERS who are stealing from the tax payers?
Do those on the left who attack the RICH "capitalists" as evil, EVER mention the movie stars, athletes, or Soros or Buffet or Pelosi(she was born rich and married rich sounds like she does not deserve it) or Reid for being undeserving of their income?
Is not the issue at hand, saving Federal money by cutting losses which the GOP is trying to do by cutting fraud and abuses on entitlements?
Does that not make those on the left HYPOCRITES?
Oh thats right they need the votes of that block of governmnet dependants who rely on governmnet handouts SO instead of cuttiing fraud they raise taxes on those pursuing the American Dream that Obama CLAIMS he wants everyone to have a chance at...
Probably because he wants to TAX those who succede in order to buy more votes from those who don't.
Yet they cannot deal with the issues at hand.

BY the way I suggest you try to get caught up on your reading if you want to make derogatory comments about posts that you seem to know nothing about..
Frequently the left/liberal trio attack the rich capitalists on these blogs..

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), who administers the food benefits program nationwide, EBT card trafficking diverts an estimated $330 million from food stamp benefits every year. Broken down another way, the USDA explained, one cent of every food stamp dollar is trafficked to buy something other than food.

• Is working and not reporting income?
• Has an unreported person in the home?
• Has unreported bank accounts or other assets?
• Is receiving welfare for a person who is not living in the home?
• Is receiving welfare from more than one county or state at the same time?

Crime.... it is useless trying to make sense out of Natives posts. It's best to just laugh it off. He and Fredo have made my day many a day...:-)

The excuse to cut these problems are always like these pathetic excuses. So statistically 1% of every food stamp dollar is not spent on food, so lets cut the benefits to the poor. That's 1%! Kind of like the crackdown on voter fraud which makes it so that a lot of Democratic voters can't vote, with fraudulent votes being something like 0.001% of all votes. Got to crackdown on that even if it makes eligible voters uneligible.

Now let's compare these statistics to other tax dodgers, corporations, 2/3 of whom do not pay their corporate taxes(but still like to complain about taxes on corporations being too high).

I don't know what your obsession with Pelosi, Soros, etc. Some rich people think their taxes should be raised, it doesn't make them rich hating or something. You know some people just don't see taxes as punishment.

So the left seems to believe as long as its tax payer money it ok TO steal AS LONG AS IT IS NOT A LARGE % ?? Stealing is stealing no matter how much it is..
Kind of like stopping voter faud... It seems like the left don't mind ILLEGAL voters voting as long as there aren't too many.... OH unless they voted for a conservative THEN there would be an uproar, BUT thats the mentality from the left...IF they require a photo ID to vote in MEXICO how hard can it be to do??? Why would legal voters be denied??? THE TRUTH IS THEY WOULDN"T!!
I'll repeat my theory... The reason the fraud and abuse are not a problem for the left is BECAUSE it affects those who would normally vote for a Democratic Party cadidate.... SOOOOO lets let it slide.

Using your logic from before that raising taxes wouldn't stop producers from working as hard, I don't honestly believe the human side of THE RICH ELITE from the left REALLY want to pay more taxes...

LOGIC tells us disposable or spendable income is in fact the money that grows the economy..... UNLIKE Pelosi who believes unemploye or welfare grow the economy ... ( if those are sources of growth there nis in fact a problem of too much SINCE THEY ARE A "TEMPORARY SUPPLEMENT" Or maybe the left believes they actually are a new form of livelyhood..

How to Calculate Spendable Income

By Ricky Andromeda, eHow Contributor

Keep track of your spendable income to stay in the black.

When planning your budget, it is important to calculate your spendable income so you can stay within your limits and not overstep your financial bounds. Spendable income is also called after-tax cash flow or disposable income, because it represents the money you have to spend after taxes and other allowances. "

So those on the left who are rich would seem to have no concern about growing the economy (possibly because they have all they want so to He-- with the economy) OR they are lying about wanting to pay more taxes..

What I personally am sick of is people like canative62 who invent their own points to disagree with. Who is saying ANYTHING you are arguing against canative62? What quotes do you have? Who are you talking to?

Has anyone here - or anywhere - said voter fraud is acceptable? In REALITY there canative62, NOT your imagination, but REALITY! And if so, what direct quote are you arguing against? Do you even know? Did you even read any of the above? I doubt it at this point.

Honestly, your whole rant here is nothing more than a complete waste of time. Other people make direct points and ask direct questions of "your" beliefs, yet, you only seem to be able to respond with complete disjointed - and irrelevant - nonsense.

Please, in the future at least try and have an adult conversation as opposed to getting out your soap box and ranting like the town loony.

Seriously, do you even read anything you steal from other websites without crediting? Some people would call that thievery, others would call it dishonest, others still would just call it a waste of time to copy-and-paste some article in a discussion forum.

No matter. Since this is the conversation you apparently want to have, let's have it. The FACT is that the GOP wants to rig the election by disenfranchising voters. That is a FACT, not an opinion. Here is a direct quote from Pennsylvania House Republican leader Mike Turzai "Voter ID - [is] going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania - done"

That quote from Turzai shows that the GOP is not about anything other than trying to rig the deck in their favor. It is not about representing ALL Americans to these people; it is all about limiting access to the polls. That is EXCLUSION not INCLUSION.

One would think that the GOP "champions of the Conditionally limited government" would not be making laws that more or less institute a poll tax that is directly against the 24th Amendment and also creating BIG GOVERNMENT. But, oh well, these people have never been consistant with any ideals of theirs, why start now?

Welcome to 21st Century Politics; it's called CalvinBall!

from above

Capitalists_Nightmare commented on Wednesday, Jul 04, 2012 at 16:38 PM The excuse to cut these problems are always like these pathetic excuses. So statistically 1% of every food stamp dollar is not spent on food, so lets cut the benefits to the poor. That's 1%! Kind of like the crackdown on voter fraud which makes it so that a lot of Democratic voters can't vote, with fraudulent votes being something like 0.001% of all votes. Got to crackdown on that even if it makes eligible voters uneligible.

I guess maybe it is time for some to learn to READ

While others never heaqrd of "positive thinking" that a typical booster for the fans .... WIN BABY WIN... does that prove AL Davis was a cheat????>

please provide a source where the GOP want a poll tax...

I guess I can understand why you are so confused... The only mention of GOP and poll tax is in "the ROLLINGSTONE" is that your source of FACTS??? The truth is poll tax iis only mentioned in the first paragraph as in the DEMOCRATS used to use poll taxes.... The list of attempts to regulate legal voting by the GOP include mostly photo ID as Mexico does... Somehow that is supposed to be a disadvantage to American poor while it works fine in MEXICO....Not once on that list is a poll tax...
BUT maybe the abuses at the poll from 2008 and 2010 are considered as manditory for the left for them to have a chance to win...After all the Attorney General could not deem it worthy to prosecute poll law violations by the New Black Panthers as it favored the Dems supporters...

ONCE AGAIN the abuses to the entitlements are ignored by the left except for the Communist who is concidered extreme by Sov..

Sorry to be so disruptive to your propaganda blog :) ... NO I'M NOT...
BUT you twist the facts and distort the issues better than many liberals...

canative62 I asked a VERY simple question and you ignore dit completely. Here, I'll put it on a sperate line for you :

Has anyone here - or anywhere - said voter fraud is acceptable?

Simple answer: NO! The FACT is that voter fraud is an imagined problem. 0.001% is far different than Pennsylvania denying poll access to almost 10% of its population. That is like saying there is a bug problem in your house so the best way of dealing with it would be to rig the whole thing with high explosives. Further, the GOP leadership in Pennsylvania has publicly said the whole reason for this is to help Mitt Romney win the election. If that is not playing politics, I don't know what is.

Twist facts? Odd coming from a person who does not even know the difference between FACT and OPINION.

Why should I provide my "source" when you CONSISTENTLY REFUSE to do the same? Oh, right, because I have integrity and am intellectually honest with myself. Here is a list of sources:

1) "A Poll Tax by Another Name" New York Times Aug, 26 2011 http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/27/opi... .

2) "Drop '21st century poll taxes" Washington Examiner Dec 16, 2011 http://washingtonexaminer.com/article....

There are more, but, since you would probably invent some reason not to trust the New York Times, I also included the right wing leaning Washington Examiner that co-sponsored the 2011 Iowa Caucus debates.

Here is the deal canative62 with your strawman argument: " It seems like the left don't mind ILLEGAL voters voting as long as there aren't too many.... OH unless they voted for a conservative THEN there would be an uproar" Now, If even ONE (1) fraudulent vote was cast for a GOP candidate, your whole argument would be completely moot. I give to you David McIntosh, Indiana GOP congressional candidate who has a very questionable voting record.

So, there you have it, I respond to your questions while you dodge and ignore my direct conter arguments to your wild accusations. It is just further proof of your inability to have a direct and hoest discussion. Frankly, I think you and many like you, have a major problem with telling the difference between FACT and OPINION. I urge you to investigate this difference so you can avoid appearing so foolish in the future.

Also canative62 you write: "Sorry to be so disruptive to your propaganda blog :) "

You need to REALLY brush up on that reading comprehension there buddy ...

This Democratr actually won..BUT violted the law

No penalties for polling-place violation

Critz draws warning for election day visits

Sandra K. Reabuck sreabuck@tribdem.com

EBENSBURG — Although Mark Critz violated state election law by going into Cambria County polls on election day without a watcher’s certificate, there are no fines or sanctions under state law for such violations, county Election Supervisor Fred Smith said Monday.

Smith – at the direction of the county election board – was preparing a warning letter to Critz advising him not only of the law but also of the board’s expectation that he won’t do it again.

The ruling will not impact the final vote count, Smith said.

Critz, a Democrat, won a hard-fought battle with GOP contender Tim Burns for the vacant 12th Congressional District seat in the special election held in conjunction with the May primary. The seat was left vacant with the death of U.S. Rep. John Murtha in February

So since he is a left wing liberal he can do what he wants????

your words

Twist facts? Odd coming from a person who does not even know the difference between FACT and OPINION.

Yet you use OP EDS as your basis for your points.... And I don't know fact from opinion???

the NY Imes piece is an OP ED piece..SO IS THIS ONE BY
Joel Gehrke
commentary writer for

Beltway Confidential

Clyburn to GOP: Drop '21st century poll taxes'
heres the tag;;

December 16, 2011

Joel Gehrke

Commentary Writer
The Washington Examiner

Honestly, it's a complete waste of time trying to have even an elementary conversation with you.

First: You are not even talking about the same thing! A candidate violating election law is FAR FAR FAR FAR different than voter fraud. Do you even know what you are talking about, or, are you just copy and pasting random articles?

Second: You AGAIN ignored my direct questions. I answered yours and rightly predicted you would not reciprocate. Why is this? I say it is because you either fundamentally don't understand what I wrote, or, you are just being intellectually dishonest and plugging your ears like a child chanting "NA NA NA I cant HEAR you NA NA NA!!!"

Third: The fragments of your post that are original are borderline illegible to say the least. Teenager text messages are almost more readable than what you wrote above.

It is now quite clear to me now canatve62 that you have no desire to have conversations or discussions. You only seem to want to copy-and-paste disjointed nonsense. I'm not sure who you think this benefits, bit, I now for a FACT it makes you seem like an oblivious fool.

I welcome you to actually participate in a conversation. That would require you actually reading what other people write, thinking about it yourself - GASP! Horror! Shock! - and then responding with your OWN thoughts. Give it a try!

canative62, can you READ AT ALL? The FACT is that people call the GOP actions a Poll Tax, not a FACT that it actually is one. Can you even remember back all of 1 hour ago when you asked :

"The only mention of GOP and poll tax is in "the ROLLINGSTONE" is that your source of FACTS???"

I proved you WRONG by showing two other places. These opinion pieces I mentioned are very well written and use FACT to SUPPORT the overall thesis of the pieces.

One must ask, if you fundamentally don't understand such basic concepts as FACTS and OPINIONS, what other elementary ideas are foreign to you? Further, how could you be expected to make any rational decisions when the basic of reality are a perpetual mystery to you?

Here canative62 is a DIRECT QUOTE from Congressman Clyburn from the Examiner:

"I think it's time for us to get rid of these 21st century poll taxes, these [inaudible] devices, such as were used back in the 19th century to deny people participation in our election process. I think there's something wrong with saying to a student that you can use your student id [to] go into a bank and transact any business that you care to transact, yet you cannot use that [as a] voter ID to cast your vote at the polls."

But hey, getting to that part would require actually READING THE ARTICLE! And we all know that reading is something you are not very good at ...

So Clyburn said so that makes it truth???

Answer my question for the fourth time HOW IS IT Mexico requires a photo I D to vote but the poor in the US can't get one???

They can't get food stamps without I D they cant get welfare with out ID ..
this is just a B S excuse to keep an open door for voter fraud./.. IF youo want to vote get a photo ID voting is a privelidge not a right YOU MUST BE LEGAL
or our voting process is a farce.

For the record I wouldn't consider CLYBURNS RECORD OF FACTS AS VERY GOOD

even your man Obama does not consider everything Clyburn says as IT..!!!

BUT YOU DO??

Crime: Native believes dinosaurs roamed the Earth with Man, how can you expect a debate on realities from this guy?
He is simply just a source of amusement, that's it. (Along with his sidekick, Fredo, that is) :-) :-)

canative62, you really don't understand the difference between opinion and fact do you? Makes sense though if LarryBaca is correct.

I NEVER said Clyburn was right. Again, you have a hard time with basic reading comprehension. You mocked with a quip about ROLLINGSTONE and my only point was to mention there was popular media and actual political figures making the same points, NOT ask you claimed just ROLLINGSTONE.

See, even when I directly respond to you, you either CAN'T COMPREHEND , or REFUSE TO.

Oh, and to answer your question about National ID, but, you won't listen. TED KENNEDY authored a bill requiring a National ID. Guess who shot it down claiming that the Federal Government was usurping state's rights? The issue of a National ID to curb illegal immigration was proposed in the Real Enforcement with Practical Answers for Immigration Reform (REPAIR) Proposal and NOT A SINGLE REPUBLICAN SUPPORTED IT! NOT A SINGLE ONE!

Find your hat and start eating. That is, if you even managed to read past the first two words.

who ever said anything about "national ID? all I said was if Mexico ca require photo ID for voting it shoul;dn't be too hard in the U S.. BUT nin the mind of the left wing biased they twist everything to the LEFT... You are side by side witih Baca, Short on dealing with the issues and LONG on hate for any opposition... SUITS you Keep taking your shots, I can take it and I will continue to present opposition pieces that those of open minds WILL read... I'm not too worried about people like you three. Even CN has a better chance of understanding than you closed minded left wing socialists who only accept the AUTHORIZED line ...

You don't even read what you post. What makes you think like minded people would read more than you? Oh, right, reality has never been a factor in your decision making process.

canative what I'm saying is people like you take a non-issue and use it to try and push your agenda. Voter fraud is a non-issue. Literally, it has no bearing on elections in the U.S., but conservatives try and make it an issue and use it to push their agenda of getting Democratic voters away from the voting booths. Want to cut benefits for poor people? Say there is so much corruption, that it's not actually being spent on food when it's only 1% that isn't. And then if someone says that's not a good excuse to gut the poor you say that we don't care about stopping fraud and the misuse of funds, etc. You don't really care, you just want to cut benefits and stop Democrats from voting.

See what I mean, funny stuff...first native cries about our being "...LONG in hate for any opposition". Then finishes up calling us "...closed minded left wing socialists"...
Hilarious....:-) :-) :-)

canative what is your point about Mexico? Apparently Mexico is a beacon of light when it comes to elections? Yeah Mexico isn't corrupt as hell! The place where you can get killed for your political opinions! What's up with conservatives always looking to other countries to defend their positions? Remember when the whole mosque by the WTC site thing was going on? How many times did I hear "Well they wouldn't let a Christian Church be built within in Mecca, so why should we let them build a Mosque near where 9/11 happened?" As if Saudi Arabia is a beacon of light for religious freedom in this world! Or when Congress was trying to censor the internet. How many times did I see conservatives say something like "Well in China they censor things on the internet, so why couldn't we?" As if China is a bastion of freedom which should be emulated! Now it's looking to Mexico in comparison to our elections. Well why don't we just do what Mexico does? Really?! You mean the country that is plagued by fraudulent elections? They literally had elections a few days ago and a lot of people are claiming that there was a large amount of election fraud in it.

Like really, do you guys know anything about other countries, or do you just not understand that we don't want to be like Mexico, Saudi Arabia, or China? Or do you want to be like those countries, I don't know, maybe you do. Cheap labor, fraudulent elections, theocratic government, very authoritarian state, etc.

CN
I think it was you who said how "unfair ir was on the poor to make them show a photo ID" I pointed out Mexico is more poor than us and they can show a photo I D to vote...

BUT you sound like you KNOW whats actually on my mind more than I do.. Boy Commies are so GOOD.

The truth is I believe the law is the law NOT Njust on margins of there not TOO MANY violating the law Entitlemnts OR voting the law is the law and should be follow.. Ther should be no EXCUSE to allow voters to vote without proof that they are legal... It is REALLY as simple as that... As far as entitlements when 1% steal from the tax payers its 1% TOO many. why is it so bad to CUT out fraud and abuses??? Why do we promote a class of people DEPENDANT on government handouts? IF we controlled it better would we not be better able to help those WHO REALLY NEEDED IT???? Right now inb this state we are fighting over what services need to be cut to keep us from going broke..... BUT YOU* think stealing is OK as long as its not too much... THAT'S another point WERE WE DIFFER

CN, apparently Native didn't read the post from Crimeriddendump. In fact this is not 'apparently' about it, everyone knows Native has selective comprehension, here it is again, here, I'll write it real slow, one letter at a time, just for you Native, now try to concentrate:
"The FACT is that the GOP wants to rig the election by disenfranchising voters. That is a FACT, not an opinion. Here is a direct quote from Pennsylvania House Republican leader Mike Turzai "Voter ID - [is] going to allow Gov. Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania - done"
And Done....

I actually never said that canative, never said anything about poor people and how the laws will affect them. If you actually believe that this campaign against "voter fraud" is about stopping the non-issue of voter fraud then you are crazy. Because there is no voter fraud problem in the US. You don't just make an issue of a non-issue in politics if there is no agenda behind it. If you can't understand that you have no business talking politics. You don't just make 20% of the voting population uneligible to vote over a problem so big as voter fraud in Florida(which was at 0.0004% of votes) now do you? And it's just a coincidence that the demographics that vote Democratic are those now uneligible to vote right and that only Republicans are pushing for these things. Do you really believe that. I try to think you're not that stupid, that you're just a manipulative devil, but its hard to tell at times. What about the fact that a Republican rep in Pennsylvania said " and now that we got voter I.D. passed Romney can win the state"? Just a slip, he really meant to say he got voter I.D. passed for the Law and Justice right! And yeah I'm sure cutting benefits for poor people is to stop people on food stamps to only buy food on it!

Once Again you are all missing the issue.... WHY, I repeat, WHY is it so difficult for someone to get a photo ID to VOTE? Don't hey have to have it to get food stamps don't they have to have it to get entitlements????? You could be right, FOR NOW voter fraud is a non issue BUT that does not mean the Obama supporters are not beyond it, as they PROVED in 2008. Not only Obama supporters but Obama's administration ignored the violations.You are so very right you don't make an issue of a "non issue" unless there is an agenda.Some on the left do in fact have an agenda, to insure a continued move to socialism..SO in fact the "non issue" you are dealing with only supports an assured Dem victory in Nov. THERE IS AN ISSUE ABOUT VOTING REMAINING ONLY FOR THOSE LEGALLY REGISTERED. Except for desparate liberals..It is easy to see how you all can be so ignorant since it is what you want...The left sees it is in the minority on the direction the current leftist administration is taking this country so the "non issue" is vital for an open door to get what they want, as they have IN FACT proven they are not beyond cheating to win...

"WHY is it so difficult for someone to get a photo ID to VOTE?"

Simple, the GOP makes it difficult to prevent up to 10% of the people from voting. Especially the poor.

That is your answer, for like the 15th time now. How many more times do you need your question answered before you actually register it? Or, are you even reading anything? I'm starting to question it otherwise if you were, your reading level would be at that of a 4th grader.

How did Obama voters prove to be in favor of voting fraud and utilize it in 2008? They didn't because voter fraud is so minimal in the US that it doesn't affect it at all. Voter fraud isn't pushing this country in this or that direction because it really is a non-issue. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid and just look at the facts. I don't want a Democratic election win in November and could hardly care if Obama or Romney win the elections, but I'm not going to sit here and act like Republicans are fighting for the legitimacy of elections or something like that.

But what do you think will happen this election cycle? Obama is so unpopular so he's going to have his supporters cheat the system and somehow voter fraud will actually be an issue? No, it's about trying to get Obama voters away from the voting booths.

from
ehow.com
Hoe to get an ID
Instructions

Gather the identifying documents you will need. These can include documents such as a passport, certified birth certificate, old driver's license, military ID or a Social Security card. Because the requirements for the type of documents needed vary by location, you might want to take all of the identifying documents you have, letting the officials decide which ones they prefer.
2

Visit the ID issuing office where you are. This is usually done at the DMV office, but it some states like Michigan, you can get your state ID by visiting the Secretary of State's office. Remember that you must be a resident of the state where you apply for your photo ID.

3

Supply the requested information that may be needed for the card, such as your address. Pay the required fee, sit for your photo and that's it. The official will present you with your new photo ID card.
If anyone thinks the following quote from above is actually an answer as to why it is difficult to get a photo ID (as opposed to the above post describing HOW EASY IT IS TO GET A PHOTO ID) they are an IDIOT

"WHY is it so difficult for someone to get a photo ID to VOTE?"

Simple, the GOP makes it difficult to prevent up to 10% of the people from voting. Especially the poor.

First HOW does the GOP prevent people from getting a photo ID???
Do the stand outside the DMV and prevent the poor from entering much the same way the New Black Panthers did at polling places???
Do the GOP ban photo IDs for the poor in some states???
Why is getting a photo ID so difficult??? (see the above post from ehow)
Should not everyone who votes care enough to prove by a simple photo ID that their preveledge to vote
is in fact secure??? WHY NOT???

CN
Yes I do believe the radical left would cheat and they have a track record to prove it..
the GOP is not a revolutionary body as you are so they don't act outside the law... THey just think the law should be enforced... SO IT IS NOT INTO TRYING TO KEEP ANY LEGAL VOTERS AWAY.... actually most conservatives believe that if it is a fair election the GOP will win ... However you cannot honestly say the Liberals have not shown that they do not honor such rules and regulations... THEY like you only support the laws they like and that further their cause slanting the balance their way.. SO basically your opinion about the GOP and voter fraud sucks...

from
dmv.org

Drivers License & ID
Drivers Ed
Drivers Permits
Drivers Training
Applying for a New License (Teen Drivers)
Applying for a New License (Drivers 18+)
Renewing Your License
Replacing a Lost License
Driving Record
Special Licenses
Donor Information
Voter Registration
Identification Cards
Passport Application & Renewal
Passport Card & Enhanced Driver License
International Driver Permits
Practice Tests
Insurance Center
Driving Records
Registration & Titling
Vehicle History Reports
Teens (Under 18)
Drivers (18 and Older)
Commercial Drivers (CDL)
Motorcycle Riders
Drivers in the Military
Buying & Selling
Tickets & Violations
Address & Name Change
DMV Office Finder
Forms & Publications
Relocation & Movers Guide
Safety & Driving
Reports & Records
Marketplace
DMV Guide
Contact DMV.org Website SupportSearch DMV.ORG
Find information on licenses, registration, records, and more.

Search DMV.ORG
Find information on licenses, registration, records, and more.

Home Drivers License & ID

Identification Cards
Choose Your StateAlabamaAlaskaArizonaArkansasCaliforniaColoradoConnecticutDelawareFloridaGeorgiaHawaiiIdahoIllinoisIndianaIowaKansasKentuckyLouisianaMaineMarylandMassachusettsMichiganMinnesotaMississippiMissouriMontanaNebraskaNevadaNew HampshireNew JerseyNew MexicoNew YorkNorth CarolinaNorth DakotaOhioOklahomaOregonPennsylvaniaRhode IslandSouth CarolinaSouth DakotaTennesseeTexasUtahVermontVirginiaWashingtonWest VirginiaWisconsinWyomingWashington DCState-issued identification cards are a handy resource if you do not, or are not old enough to, carry a driver's license. DMV.org has gathered the information you'll need to apply for an ID in your state.Having some form of photo ID is critical in our world today; you need to be able to prove you are who you say you are in many situations. You'll need a picture ID to board an airplane, get a job, set up bank accounts, and in order to make certain purchases.

Click around DMV.org to learn the documentation you'll need to apply for an ID card, which forms to fill out, where to apply, how long IDs are valid, and the costs involved to get one.

also
immihelp.org gives immigrants direction as to how it is important to have a photo ID in the US and how to get one...

so please TELL ME AGAIN.. WHY is it so hard to get a photo ID???

How to Get a Photo ID

By Daniel Ketchum, eHow Contributor

In the modern world, it is virtually impossible to get by without an official photo ID card. You need an ID to open bank accounts, cash checks, rent cars and to do almost anything involving a money exchange or purchase. Not to mention that the police do not look favorably on someone with no ID. Fortunately, it is very quite to get a photo ID.

Other People Are Reading
How to Get an ID Without a Photo ID
How to Get a Passport Without a

NOW again how is it so hard to get a photo ID????

OR is it that there is in fact an agenda from the left where such ID would be a hinderence???

from the geniu$ in hi$ own mind...

LarryBaca commented on Friday, Jul 06, 2012 at 16:38 PM Crime:
Native believe$ dinosaurs roamed the Earth with Man, how can you expect a debate on realitie$ from this guy?
He is simply just a source of amusement, that's it. (Along with his sidekick, Fredo, that i$) :-) :-)

ANd Crimeridden side$ with thi$ opinionated one..

from
askquestions.com
(there are actually differing opinion$ than Baca's)

Those who believe in a younger age for the earth tend to agree that the Bible does mention dino$aurs, though it never actually uses the word “dino$aur.” In$tead, it uses the Hebrew word tanniyn, which i$ translated a few different ways in our Engli$h Bible$. Sometime$ it’s “sea monster,” and sometime$ it’$ “serpent.” It i$ most commonly translated “dragon.” The tanniyn appear to have been some sort of giant reptile. These creatures are mentioned nearly thirty time$ in the Old Testament and were found both on land and in the water.

In addition to mentioning these giant reptile$, the Bible describe$ a couple of creatures in such a way that some scholars believe the writer$ may have been describing dino$aurs. The behemoth is said to be the mightie$t of all God’s creatures, a giant whose tail is likened to a cedar tree (Job 40:15). Some scholars have tried to identify the behemoth as either an elephant or a hippopotamu$. Others point out that elephants and hippopotamuse$ have very thin tail$, nothing comparable to a cedar tree. Dino$aurs like the brachio$aurus and the diplodocu$, on the other hand, had huge tails which could easily be compared to a cedar tree.

BUT Baca hates Christians and the Bible... SO it is natural for him to be so opinionated on the subject...

sorry
it was

gotquestions.com

What track record to prove it? What hell are you even talking about? The GOP is trying to change the laws to make it harder for people to vote(who by coincidence vote Democratic right), that's what one rep said himself. Why don't you respond to that quote, the fact that your own party rep let it slip that these laws are to help Mitt win in November? That these are just more Republicans being the slimy snakes that they are.

And lol at your copy/paste about how you think dinosaurs lived on Earth with us at the same time. Didn't we already go over this? And what does your quote prove? Absolutely nothing, just that there are other people as crazy as you are who can't even realize how different human society would be if dinosaurs and humans coexisted. Not to mention how unscientific they are. Saying "I have this opinion" does not magically make it correct you?

Can't any liberal answer the question??? WHAT laws are the GOP trying to pass that prevents repeat PREVENTS only one who is legal from voting????
I just showed how easy it is to get photo ID..... you can't deal with actually being a legitimate voter????
The GOP is NOT making it any harder to vaote for LEGAL residents who have the right to vote>>>>>> FACT

your lies and biasis do not change anything and IF a member of the GOP believes that curbing voter fraud will make it easier for Romney to win SO WHAT that is no hint of misconduct by the GOP ..... Except in the mind of hateful libs..

Fraud Won Pennsylvania & Ohio in 2008

April 23, 2012
By Sara Noble

Anonymous Hacked Stratfor

Wikileaks hacked Stratfor, the private intelligence gathering firm in Texas. Emails they uncovered claim they presented proof positive to John McCain that Democrats in Pennsylvania and Ohio used voter fraud to win those states and committed other disturbing crimes. McCain refused to act on the information.

One email, as seen below, is dated November 7, 2008 under the subject line “ Insight – The Dems & Dirty Tricks ** Internal Use Only – Pls Do Not Forward **,” was sent by Fred Burton, Stratfor’s V.P. of Intelligence. It said in part, The black Dems were caught stuffing the ballot boxes in Philly and Ohio as reported the night of the election and Sen. McCain chose not to fight. The matter is not dead inside the party. It now becomes a matter of sequence now as to how and when to “out”.

from
pennlive.com

"The Department of State, which oversees voting in Pennsylvania, feels the courts will support the law as a common-sense solution to a problem of identifying voters.

“We believe the law is on solid legal grounds,” department spokesman Ron Ruman said.

Ruman noted the U.S. Supreme Court has upheld a similar law passed in Indiana.

Though the state does not have a catalog of in-person voter-fraud cases, Ruman said the previous lack of an ID law made it impossible to tell if a person was trying to commit fraud. “You can’t prosecute something you can’t detect,” Ruman said.

The Corbett administration has estimated that only 1 percent of all voters lack ID. Since Corbett signed the law, PennDOT said it has issued 943 free identification cards to voters who otherwise did not have one."

NOW using the CN response to the entitlement fraud argument( where ONLY 1% of foodstamps are fraud).... 1% voters would be affected. is not worth becoming an issue...

WAIT is 1% worth making it an issue OR NOT... MY GUESS would be that only as it suits the cause for the left...
which nis typical of the left minded mentality...

Canative you are so stupid! Who is the one making it an issue?! Republicans, not me! And how does this make you look, not caring about disenfranchising people or taking away benefits to the poor? It's only 1% in Penn! That's the battle cry of Republicans now isn't it "We'll only disenfranchise 1% of Penn!"
Like I said I could hardly care who wins the next election but I'm just saying we should be honest here about what is going on. Of course there is not an honest bone in a politicians body and you're either drinking the Kool-Aid or willingly playing dumb to push their agenda.

As I have been saying, the only way for the right to win is not on actual issues or their record, but rather by gerryrigging the system, and stacking the deck.

There is no honesty, or integrity, there is only winning at any cost. Problem is, once they win, they have no idea what to do, so theY end up wreck things.

Did you notice that there are bloggers who don't stake their claim left or right, but if you disagree with a wing nut, you are immediately labeled from the left. I guess when you are so far right, any thing else would be to the left.

Who is the one making it an issue?! Republicans, not me! And how does this make you look, not caring about disenfranchising people or taking away benefits to the poor?

Lets see... Whos is actually stupid here!! The cutting of fraud and abuse is "taking away benefits from the poor???? the ones cheating and abusing the system draining limited funds from those who actually need it are the one REALLY stealing benefits... BUT you don't see it... thats stupid
Disenfranchising the poor???? as stated in posts above NO ONE should be without photo ID and EVERYONE needs photo ID in order to get bank accounts welfare etc... SO unless there is the open door for voter fraud, being PUSHED here that is an ignorant comment...
For the record it is not disenfranchising the poor from voting, to require them to show they are eligible to vote.... unless they are not eligible...any more than it shows a lack of compassion for the poor by FIXING a broken system that is failing and running out of money due to abuse and fraud.. IF your mind can not grasp that you are the stupid one.

Why is it no one can actually answer why, when several sites show how easy it is to get a photo ID, that requiring a photo ID is in fact improper... IT BECOMES OBVIOUS that the left is becoming desparate to make this an issue.. Why is it that fixing a broken system that spends tax payers money by cutting fraud and abuse of entitlements, all the while depriving those who REALLY need it, is not something everyone should be working on.... UNLESS the left intends to use those abusers as a voting block....

As far as honesty and integrity ANYONE been watching the real news lately??? coruption all over the Obama machine and no one says anything...
.Yes I guess when you are so far left you can't see what is right to save your life OR THE COUNTRY..

(PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images)


FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Obama promised us the "most transparent" administration in history, but there are growing signs that it's just business as usual in Washington.

Politico.com reports that four times in the last week, the president has quietly attended private and exclusive Democratic Party fund-raisers – all closed to the press.

These events are for the fat cats – big donors, sometimes paying as much as $30,000 to attend. They're held at fancy hotels or at the homes of wealthy supporters.

The White House claims the president had nothing "formal" to say at these small fund-raisers so there was no need to have reporters on hand. They say the rule is if the president makes a speech or formal remarks, the event is open to the press.

But the president is clearly talking to donors at these events. One Democratic source tells Politico that at such a fund-raiser, the president will typically give a brief address to the group, then he might spend about an hour speaking one-on-one, or in small groups, with supporters.

Critics say this is an example of the president backtracking on his promise for openness. And journalists have also tried to get access to these events, with no luck.

You may recall it was at a private fund-raiser in San Francisco that then candidate-Obama was overheard telling donors that working-class people hurt by the economy "get bitter" and "cling to guns or religion." After that firestorm, Obama's campaign said it would allow more press into similar events.

But at least four times in the last week it doesn't seem to be happening.

from
huffingtonpost.com

Lobbyists Gain Upper Hand On Obama In Recent Weeks

First Posted: 08/27/09 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 02:45 PM ET
The Hill:

Lobbying interests that President Obama campaigned against last year have gained the upper hand on the White House in recent weeks.

In stark contrast to Obama's first few months in office, special interest groups this summer have aggressively opposed the president's top domestic priorities. And they have succeeded in slowing legislation to revamp the nation's healthcare system, won an essential change to climate change legislation and put off efforts to set up a consumer agency in the financial sector.

Yeah Sov
honesty and integrity by the Left????

by
Mike Brownfield

So what about the Administration’s argument that other countries are investing heavily in these industries, so the United States must keep up? In a new paper, Heritage’s Nicolas Loris analyzes the green bank program and points out a harsh reality: When subsidies are removed from these green energy industries, they collapse because they were developed in a bubble and can’t survive on their own. Loris explains that European countries–which pursued the path the Obama Administration would like to go down–learned that lesson the hard way and are making an exit:

When faced with a need for drastic budget cuts and job creation, Spain, the United Kingdom, Germany, France, and the Czech Republic decided to reduce subsidies for green energy programs, such as wind and solar energy. As a result, some industries have collapsed and others are either collapsing or face difficult roads ahead.

Although each European country has taken a different approach to subsidize green technologies, the results have been the same: Artificially propping up industries by reallocating labor and capital toward uncompetitive projects, forcing higher energy prices on ratepayers, and failing projects are costly to the economy and the taxpayer.

Europe has seen that picking winners and losers in green energy doesn’t work and brings with it a steep cost. The

Obama Administration has seen it first hand with Solyndra, the hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars it wasted, and the 1,100 former employees now out of work. But for some reason, even that first-hand experience can’t convince them to stop playing with taxpayer dollars as if it’s their “Monopoly” money to burn.

canative62 proves the stubborn ignorance of the defenders of blind conservatism. Nothing will change his mind from the reality he has invented in his head.

Heck, I'm sure canative62 thinks he is right because his PASTOR tells him so, and hey, that guy has never been wrong before ...

It is so easy to see who the brainwashed super christians are; they leave behind a wake of ignorance.

Hey, ever hear that one about the Texas Tea Party people that said critical thinking skills should not be taught in school? I think canative62 was a couple of years ahead of that game ...

As I said before, Native believes Dinosaurs roamed the Earth with Man.... that should explain a lot...

Yeah SOV

Lets all participate.... I 'M sure there are none in the extreme on your side are there.... :) :)...

We can all work together ... as long as there are no Christians , conservatives or any opposition to left wing socialism... LONG LIVE ^THE USA

So you're telling me cuts to welfare are going to solely the people who have been caught abusing the system? If not, then yes, you are cutting benefits for the poor, not to just those abusing the system. That's what you don't understand, it's not meant to stop abuse, it's meant to cut benefits to the poor, but you're drinking the Kool-Aid and adopt the message that it's a crackdown on abuse. And you sit here with a (presumably) straight face and say the abuse is breaking this country. Yet you admit it is only 1% of food stamps. How is 1% of food stamps going to something other than food stamps causing our government to go broke? You see that's what I call being disingenuous. Your excuse for cutting benefits to the poor and then your turning around and saying it will help them is nothing but disingenuous.

IN FACT the idea is to cut ABUSES that means the ones who are cheating NOT everyone... BY the way your 1% IS TOTALLY INACURATE FOR FRAUD AND ABUSE, it is 1% REPORTED... I know for a fact that MANY welfare supervisors do not want their intake workers to question or investigate the application "because they don't have time to do so". SO logically the silly notion that fraud and abuse is only 1% is FOOLISH.. JUST as foolish as thinking we should ignore the problem and it will just go away.... The fraud and abuse is growing. People are learning how to "WORK THE SYSTEM". What does that tell you??? Yes people cheat, MANY people cheat... and tax payers pay for it... the liberal answer is to just increase taxes to pay for it.. NOT to cut the abuse... The liberal way is just to increase the situation keep the cheats and tax MORE... Thet denies the idea of HOPE to accomplish the AMerican Dream to ACCOMPLISH SUCCESS...IN place of LET THE GOVENMENT TAKE CARE OF YOU......OH as long as you vote for Democrats ... SIMPLE way of buying votes from the poor with tax payer money,..... REAL HELP would be to get the people on their FEET not just continuing the problem at others expense....LOOK at it this way IF you got those people off welfare and back to work you would save on Welfare costs AND putting them to work makes them tax PAyers SO YOU Increase revenue...
What a concept!!!...
.BUT that would cut into the voting block of the DEMs so they won't touch it..Which explains why the "war on poverty " is such a failure.... The Dems don't want it to succede...They have been faking it for 50 years... Thats disingenuinous for you..

Hello canative62, I am a Democrat and I consider myself to be fairly liberal. I DO NOT support fraud or abuse of welfare benefits, nor do any of the Democrats that I know believe welfare cheating is a good thing or acceptable. However, to punish the vast majority of honest welfare recipients who truly depend on this support to feed their families is unfair. Ferreting out abuse is much different than simply reducing the amount of money that goes to the welfare programs. You say that you "know for a fact that MANY welfare supervisors do not want their intake workers to question or investigate the application..." What do you consider to be "many" and how do you know this as a "fact" ? Please do not respond by quoting OPINION bloggers who support your contention. Facts should be able to be shown using objective sources and data. You claim that the 1% figure is "totally inaccurate" because it depends on reported or documented cases, yet you respond by asserting that "MANY people cheat" but you provide NO documentation or proof of that claim AT ALL. You make the assumption that Democrats do not want to help people get back on their feet and help them find jobs. That is an inaccurate statement. As a Democrat, I see the value in the dignity of work and being self-sufficient and productive. Although there will always be those who cheat whatever system they can, it is my OPINION that a great number of welfare recipients would love to have a job that provides for their families without having to rely on government assistance. Unfortunately, for some on disability, this is not possible.
Finally, I wanted to ask you a question about voter I.D. Is there any cost associated with these I.D. cards (for those without driver's licenses or other photo I.D.)? If so and the cost falls on those applying for such cards, even a $10 cost could dissuade poor voters. If the cost is assumed by the government, that seems like a waste of government resources and taxpayer money to offset such a small DOCUMENTED percentage of voter fraud. I stress "documented" because anything else is pure speculation on your part as to accurate numbers. Sincerely, Karen

Hello caantive62, I wanted to add one more thing. I am a Christian who also believes in the theory of evolution. You are entitled to your own beliefs and I have no desire to alter them, but I just wanted you to know that belief in both God and evolution can co-exist. The first 20 something verses of Genesis dovetail with evolutionary theory if one takes out the word "day" and replaces it with "millions of years" or an unspecified time frame. As Jesus often used parables to express himself and get a point across to his listeners, I believe that not everything in the Bible has to be taken literally. I stand by my early Sunday school teachings that "God is love'. It is this concept that comforts and sustains me. I don't go nit-picking for verses to shame, harass, condemn, or silence others who may not choose my beliefs. Sincerely, Karen

To bring this full circle back to the topic of the blog above:

I find it ironic that some here abhor the idea of government spending on health care, yet, advocate wasteful spending and bog government in terms of this invented notion above.

The truth is many people, such as seen above, can not or will not think for themselves. They find it easier to just mindlessly and steadfastly repeat and believe what one person tells without hesitation, forethought, or afterthought, and will mindlessly label anything even seemingly contradictory as heresy or evil.

Want to talk about waste and spending gaps and corruption: look no further than the pastors who run Manteca. I bet if actual TAXES where collected from these people, the actual spiritual folks will remain while the types of people like the one selling snake-oil to canative62 would find a new mark to con.

But, I feel as if my writing here is wasted on people who will never read it. If someone honestly believes that people and dinosaurs walked the earth together, they obviously don't care about facts or reason, or anything in reality.

from
wikipedia

The "cornerstone" of the REPUBLICAN Contract with AMerica

The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996 (PRWORA) is a United States federal law considered to be a fundamental shift in both the method and goal of federal cash assistance to the poor. The bill added a workforce development component to welfare legislation, encouraging employment among the poor. The bill was a cornerstone of the Republican Contract with America and was introduced by Rep. E. Clay Shaw, Jr. (R-FL-22) who believed welfare was partly responsible for bringing immigrants to the United States.[1

Hello canative62, How does this 1996 law compare to the current legislation being discussed? I thought that there was talk of downsizing the "workforce development component" due to the struggling economy, the mindset being why train for jobs when few or none are realistically available? I could be misinterpreting something here, but it's sad if this component does get eliminated or reduced. Sincerely, Karen

the Wikipedia post is because of the idea that C N has that because the GOP want to FIX a broken system it is disingenous.
I submitt that the GOP did in fact have a plan to FIX the problem..

The Democrats "War on Poverty" that never ends is more disingeneous.

Karen
would would you substitute for cuts OR do you believe we just keep on spending like we have been withthe Wart On Poverty ???

Hello canative62, Neither the "War on Poverty" nor the "War on Drugs" have been as effective as one could hope. Still, in a country as great as ours, NO child should have to go to bed hungry because his parents are either unwilling or unable (Yes, there is a big difference) to provide for him. If some of my tax money goes to feed hungry children, I am okay with that. Children should not have to suffer for the mistakes or unfortunate circumstances of their parents. Obviously, reforms are needed. How to best accomplish that is a problem that defies simple answers, slogans, and platitudes. Research into this complex situation, devoid of fear-mongering, scapegoating, or gross exaggeration is the first step. Sincerely, Karen

Karen
As you are one who at least has a more open mind I would submit that we indeed need to make changes.
ONE hudge problem as seen on this blog IS that fact that Conservatives and Republicans are dismissed with FALSE images and accusations as CN 's effort top pronounce that the GOP favors discontinuing the welfare program, when the truth is it was the Republican Contract With America that brought us the welfare to work program, as shown above... Maybe when those on the left get over their unvarnished hate for the Conservatives who actually oppose the direction this nation is goin as do 60% of the people, we could move on.
Note the comments aimed at conservatives on this blog to see my point.
Yet we have Sov telling us to participate then he mocks Conservtives as extremeists for the reason they are excluded from participating and being the reciepients of the mockery and disrespect. This attitude runs from top to bottom of the left wing politics.
Yes folks we have a problem, we are seriously divided and we have a minority desparate to run this country trying to silence any opposition to their agenda.
Then we just let the system keep on running and draining the revenues.. Oh well..

You need to look in the mirror canative62. The majority of your issues seem to be more like self loathing to me.

The major reason that we are divided is that people like YOU cantive62 REFUSE to listen to facts and reason and instead substitute your own prejudices and superstitions for actual facts.

Honestly, I'm not sure how I can take anyone seriously that actually believes, as you do, that the world is 3,000 years old and Jesus walked around with dinosaurs. To me, that brand of willful ignorance is the most telling about these people. REALITY DOES NOT MATTER TO THEM!

It is clear canative62 to me that before canative62 can be taken seriously, he needs to abandon his world of ignorance and join the rest of us in reality.

Native and reality, now there's an interesting concept...

"these people" in literal translation people who believe differently than you do? The dictionary would describe tthat can of thinking as bigotry..
I thouight this was a country of religious freedom? So if We believe in Creation we cannot take part in politics????
Check your Constitution!! Or do you believe like Obama that it is flawed????

Yes folks we have a problem, we are seriously divided and we have a minority desparate to run this country trying to silence any opposition to their agenda.

From Wikipedia,

Religion in the United States is characterized by both a wide diversity of religious beliefs and practices and by a high adherence level. According to recent surveys, 83 percent of Americans identify with a religious denomination, 40 percent state that they attend services nearly every week or more, and 58 percent say that they pray at least weekly.[1] A majority of Americans report that religion plays a "very important" role in their lives, a proportion unique among developed nations.[2] Many faiths have flourished in the United States, including both later imports spanning the country's multicultural immigrant heritage, as well as those founded within the country; these have led the United States to become one of the most religiously diverse countries in the world.[3] Doubts about the existence of God are growing rapidly among Americans under 30.[4]

The majority of Americans (76% to 80%) identify themselves as Protestants or Catholics, accounting for 51% and 25% of the population respectively, according to one survey by Trinity College.[5] Other religions including Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hindu collectively make up about 5% of the adult population.[5][6][7] Another 15% of the adult population claim no religious affiliation.[5] When asked, about 5.2% said they did not know, or refused to reply.[5] According to the American Religious Identification Survey, religious belief varies considerably by region. The lowest rate is in the West with 59% reporting a belief in God, and the highest rate in the South at 86%.[5][8]

One in five Americans finds socialism superior, poll says

Twenty percent of the American public believes that socialism is superior to capitalism, says a poll by Rasmussen Reports released on Thursday, April 9.

Asked the question "Which is a better system - capitalism or socialism?", 53% of those polled found capitalism the better system, 20% preferred socialism, and 27% were unsure. The survey did not define either capitalism or socialism, but Rasmussen also cites a December 2008 result saying that 15% of Americans prefer a government-managed economy.

Analysis of the poll's data by website FiveThirtyEight.com furthermore found that support for capitalism was closely correlated with income; respondents earning under $20,000 a year having an eight percentage point preference for capitalism, while those earning more than $100,000 a year expressed a fifty-seven percentage point preference for capitalism. Rasmussen noted that socialism had much broader support among people under 30, where 33% support socialism and 37% support capitalism, than among any other age group.

from
americansocialist.org

The right wing accuses us of boring from within. They like the Norman Thomas' quote "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." When Thomas said this, liberals self-identified very publicly. Hubert Humphrey, for instance, wore the label proudly and worked closely with members of the Socialist Party. American liberalism is much akin to social democracy in protecting the most vulnerable and expanding opportunity. The political upheaval over the Vietnam war shattered the old liberal coalition in the Democratic Party into isolated single interest groups with no long range vision. America was the bulwark against both Fascism and Communism, those pretend socialists. Socialism seemed anti-American.

Pointless to ask canative62 questions since he does not read, but, here we go:

What do you think about the people who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a deity? What IF a group of these people were elected and demanded that it be taught in schools that a great Spaghetti monster came from sky and created mankind?

What if that happened? You would then argue with these people that they are bonkers because you KNOW that it was actually Jesus who did all that stuff.

So, what if instead, we make an agreement:

You - Keep religion out of science
We - Keep science out of religion

Done.

I thought science dealt with facts and provable hypothesis....
Evolution remains a theory and should be taught as such...

Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution

More Americans accept theory of creationism than evolution

by Frank Newport

GALLUP NEWS SERVICE

PRINCETON, NJ -- The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. This suggests that when three Republican presidential candidates at a May debate stated they did not believe in evolution, they were generally in sync with the bulk of the rank-and-file Republicans whose nomination they are seeking to obtain.

Independents and Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe in the theory of evolution. But even among non-Republicans there appears to be a significant minority who doubt that evolution adequately explains where humans came from.

The data from several recent Gallup studies suggest that Americans' religious behavior is highly correlated with beliefs about evolution. Those who attend church frequently are much less likely to believe in evolution than are those who seldom or never attend. That Republicans tend to be frequent churchgoers helps explain their doubts about evolution.

The data indicate some seeming confusion on the part of Americans on this issue. About a quarter of Americans say they believe both in evolution's explanation that humans evolved over millions of years and in the creationist explanation that humans were created as is about 10,000 years ago.

By Dr. John Ankerberg, Dr. John Weldon
(excerpted from Darwin’s Leap of Faith, Harvest House, 1998)
Rejection on Scientific Grounds
An article of evolutionist Ronald Bailey in Reason attempts to explain why so many
non-creationist political conservatives are now abandoning belief in evolution. Supposedly,
it’s not because of the scientific evidence. Bailey’s argument assumes that evolution is
true—and that recent new discoveries discredit or disprove the creationist’s probability and
design arguments (they don’t). Incredibly, he argues that the only reason conservatives
reject evolution is to preserve the moral order resulting from religious values. He cites
Irving Kristol who correctly wrote, “If there is one indisputable fact about the human condition
it is that no community can survive if it is persuaded—or even if it suspects—that its
members are leading meaningless lives in a meaningless universe.”21 Bailey actually suggests
that conservatives secretly know that evolution is true, but they lie and deceive the
public and criticize evolution publicly in order to help reserve the moral order!
This entirely ignores the fact that evolution is being rejected today largely on scientific
grounds, not social or moral grounds, and that the attack on evolution comes more from
establishment science than from religious creationism.

science???

"Over 500 Scientists Proclaim Their Doubts About Darwin's Theory of Evolution

Robert Crowther February 20, 2006 7:28 AM | Permalink

Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

The list of 514 signatories includes member scientists from the prestigious US and Russian National Academy of Sciences. Signers include 154 biologists, the largest single scientific discipline represented on the list, as well as 76 chemists and 63 physicists. Signers hold doctorates in biological sciences, physics, chemistry, mathematics, medicine, computer science, and related disciplines. Many are professors or researchers at major universities and research institutions such as MIT, The Smithsonian, Cambridge University, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, the Ohio State University, the University of Georgia, and the University of Washington.

Discovery Institute first published its Scientific Dissent From Darwinism list in 2001 to challenge false statements about Darwinian evolution made in promoting PBS's "Evolution" series. At the time it was claimed that "virtually every scientist in the world believes the theory to be true."

"Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory," said Dr. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. "Darwinist efforts to use the courts, the media and academic tenure committees to suppress dissent and stifle discussion are in fact fueling even more dissent and inspiring more scientists to ask to be added to the list."

According to West, it was the fast growing number of scientific dissenters which encouraged the Institute to launch a website -- www.dissentfromdarwin.org -- to give the list a permanent home. The website is the Institute's response to the demand for information and access to the list both by the public, and by scientists who want to add their name to list."

from your quote from above

"It is clear canative62 to me that before canative62 can be taken seriously, he needs to abandon his world of ignorance and join the rest of us in reality."

maybe its you that needs to get with reality..

Darwin's Doubts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Questions:

•Did Charles Darwin express any doubts concerning his theory on evolution?
•Where might Darwin have expressed doubts—to friends, in publications, or elsewhere?
•Do any such doubts remain today? ... or is evolution so air tight that all prior doubts are now resolved?

Short Answer :

Yes, Darwin stated doubts concerning evolution. Some were subject to his open expression. He saw the potential—from what he could mentally wrestle and grasp—for unresolveable problems. We should expect no less from an intellect that seeks to coalesce the big picture into a seamless vision.

Conversely, so much seemed to fit the theory and nature seemed to exhibit an order that evolution theory could piece together. After all, natural selection and examples from animal breeding along with the idea of descent from some one or few common ancestral forms was logical, but not entirely reasoned to a final conclusion. Still, there were wrinkles, gaps, and issues left unexplained. And that probably bugged Darwin so much so that he edited his Origin of Species from one edition to the next. Doubts and unresolved issues remained—and with good reason—because evolution was theory and not an established fact. Even today, proof is elusive and perhaps ultimately unobtainable. So, Darwin was right to express doubts and was right to keep on problem solving as best he could.

heres more reality...

Doubts Over Evolution Continue to Mount as 60 Biologists Express Skepticism with Central Tenet of Darwin's Theory

By: Staff
Discovery Institute
September 10, 2003

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Rob Crowther
Discovery Institute
(206) 292-0401 x.107
rob@discovery.org

AUSTIN, SEPT. 10 — Evolution continues to be a theory in crisis as 60 biologists from across the country step forward and sign onto a growing list of scientists of all disciplines voicing their skepticism over one of the central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution and urging "careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."

"A growing number of scientists around the world no longer believe that natural selection or chemistry, alone, can explain the origins of life, and while they are still a minority, they are a growing minority," said Bruce Chapman, president of Discovery Institute. "It is an important day in science when biologists are bold enough to challenge one of the leading theories in their profession."

"Darwin's shrillest defenders continue to claim there is no scientific debate and no legitimate scientists who question neo-Darwinian evolution and yet again that claim is shown to be false," said John West, associate director of Discovery Institute's Center for Science & Culture. "Just last week we highlighted 40 scientists in Texas alone who have joined the national list of scientists skeptical of Darwin."

During recent decades, new scientific evidence from many scientific disciplines such as cosmology, physics, biology, "artificial intelligence" research, and others have caused scientists to begin questioning Darwinism's central tenet of natural selection and studying the evidence supporting it in greater detail.

The full statement signed by the biologists reads: "We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged." These biologists are part of a larger group of scientists, over 260, from around the world who have voiced their skepticism of certain parts Darwin's theory.

Prominent biologists who have signed the list include evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe and Giuseppe Sermonti the Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum. The list of biologists also includes scientists from Princeton, Cornell, UC Berkeley, UCLA, University of Idaho, Ohio State University, Purdue and University of Washington among others.

Gravity is also a theory. Same thing, but, again, reality does not apply to your thought process.

I don't understand how you think copy and pasting this is helping you in any way. Everyone - YES EVERYONE - has been deriding your inability to think for yourself. You prove that again here how willfully ignorant you really are.

this is real life and you are in fact the ignorant one
The majority of Americans (76% to 80%) identify themselves as Protestants or Catholics,

which leaves you in the 20% a number you should get used to..

your rank of leftist socialists which your ranting supports

Twenty percent of the American public believes that socialism is superior to capitalism, says a poll by Rasmussen Reports released on Thursday, April 9.
yep 20%.

I guess reality is all a matter of how naive you are to think you are a majority..

by the way Hoffman you really should have gotten over your overblown hatred BUT thats you.

your still as ignorant as ever..

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). June 20-24, 2012. N=1,000 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.1.
RV = registered voters. LV = likely voters. Except where noted, results below are among all adults.

.

"All in all, do you think things in the nation are generally headed in the right direction, or do you feel that things are off on the wrong track?"
.


% % % % right wrong unsure mixed
6/20-24/12 31 61 5 3
5/16-20/12 33 58 5 4
4/13-17/12 33 59 6 2
2/29-3/3/12 33 58 5 4
1/22-24/12 30 61 5 4
12/7-11/11 22 69 6 3
11/2-5/11 19 73 5 3
10/6-10/11 17 74 5 4
8/27-31/11 19 73 5 3
7/14-17/11 25 67 5 3

It looks like the Manteca left wing liberal trio have things backwards....
they seem to believe they are in the majority...FACTS, which they reject
show how wrong they are...

in religion, evolution and politics

Is there a limit to copy/paste? Apparently not...funny stuff there Native, too bad it wasn't original but still funny..
Tell us about the Iceberg thing again..

Hello canative62, It is intellectually dishonest of you to claim that some "Manteca left wing liberal trio have things backwards...they seem to believe that they are in the majority...in religion, evolution, and politics". It was YOU, not Larry Baca, not Capitalists Nightmare, not The Sovereign, not even crimeriddendump, who claimed, on another thread, that liberals seemed to be in the majority in Manteca. In FACT, crimeriddendump disagreed with you and voiced his opinion that there were many conservatives in the city. I don't see anything here by liberals asserting that they are in the majority in their religious leanings (or lack thereof) or about evolution. Speaking of evolution, you cite 500 scientists who question Darwinism. How many scientists from a range of fields (as you included) support this theory? You have given only one side and completely out of context. I would like to know the full picture. As far as religion, the majority/minority of religious beliefs does not in any way effect our constitutional right to practice religion freely, while at the same time giving us protection from government-established religion. In other words, it does not matter if Jews outnumber Christians who outnumber Buddists, we all have the right, regardless of the number of adherents, to practice our beliefs as long as they don't violate laws. Lastly, your reference to socialism points out that of those under the age of 30 (the up and coming generations) 33% favor socialism compared to 37% who favor capitalism. So it appears the younger generation is much more open to the concept and values of socialism than previous generations were. The wave of the future? Perhaps, or maybe this group sees the value in some socialist ideas that can be adapted to best serve the citizens. Sincerely, Karen

Karen

From
Crimeriddens post above..
.
It is clear canative62 to me that before canative62 can be taken seriously, he needs to abandon his world of ignorance and join the rest of us in reality.

The interpretation here is if you are a Christian(disagree with evolution) you have no right to participate in politics..

Just because the trio is in the majority in Manteca does not make it so in the "real world" which they challenged me to "get into"

The WHOLE point here is that Conservative arte mocked and belittled by the "trio" as if they were stupid and came up with out of the world ideas no one else believes... The point is the "trio" are the ones in the minority in the "world" that crimeriddendump said I should get into... I didn't sound much like he was referring to Manteca.
Mr Baca and crimeridden mentioned I didn't have a right to make political posts because I didn't believe in evolution

As far as the "Wave of the future" WE are living in today and today the majority still rules...

You have a major problem understanding the world cantive62:

FACTS are not the same as your OPINIONS
RELIGION is NOT SCIENCE

You say evolution should not be taught because it is a theory. As I said before, so is gravity.

What if a "religious" group came into power that said Gravity does not really exist and if you think hard enough and BLIEVE enough one could fly? Now, what if people actually believed this and started jumping off cliffs and dying? Would this fictional religious group be responsible, or, would this all be perfectly legal because of your backward notion of religious freedom?

Think about it. I doubt you will.

Also, in THE UNITED STATES , thet majority DOES NOT RULE! That is the whole point behind having TWO BRANCHES OF CONGRESS! One that represents the population (The House) and one that evenly represents all States (The Senate). Also the electoral college is in place for the same reasons.

Seriously canative62, you have a MAJOR problem just inventing and imagining garbage and just presenting it as absolute fact.

P.S. It proves my point even further that your only original pice - the one above this post - is borderline UNREADABLE! It is like a 3rd grader wrote it.

Hey cnative62, did you know that the POPE believes in EVOLUTION?

Did you?

So are you suggesting that you are more of biblical scholar and "christian" that the POPE?

Hello canative62, I agree with you that there is a lot of disrespect in these postings. But if you are being honest with yourself, you will admit that some of the insults and negativity come directly from you. Please don't use the childish defense, "Well, they started it". I do not believe incivility justifies perpetuating rudeness. Some of your responses to Baca, CN, and crimeriddendump are as offensive as some of their postings, so you really don't have the moral high ground here. Also, although it IS definitely insulting for crimeriddendump to suggest that you must change your beliefs in order to be "taken seriously", that is not the SAME thing as saying that you don't "have a right to make political posts" because of your rejection of the theory of evolution. You obviously have the right to post and comment on anything you want. What crimeriddendump is referring to (insultingly so) is that readers may not take your ideas as worthy of serious discussion or consideration. That is his OPINION, which he too, has the right to express (although he could have found a more tactful way to say it). Finally, in our democratic REPUBLIC (and as a former teacher I figure you already know this, but it bears repeating) the majority may "rule", but the rights of the minority are protected, otherwise we would simply have "mob rule". Sincerely, Karen

Only in a Democracy does the majority rule. We live in a democratically elected representative Republic, which is a land ruled by laws, and not by the opinion of the majority.

Canative, it must be hard to be a lonely outcast always looking for acceptance by the majority, as you constantly try and do. You taut polls that you feel somehow bring credence and justification to your opinion due to your lack of logic and reasoning. You see it in your need to show superiority in the religion you chose to follow by showing poll numbers prenting a majority, or your need to show capitalism as more popular than socialism as a justification to have just one aspect of our economy over the other as opposed to a combination of both for the betterment of the whole. You present our society as a completion for the power to reign as opposed to a society of people working together. You present your importance by showing that the greater number believes what you believe, and not by showing any results from your opinions or those in the "majority" polled. These are very hollow victories, if that can be called a victory at all.

Just on the Socialism subject, you claim "only" 20 % favor it over capitalism, which in itself is a large enough number to cause someone so endeared to capitalism as the "is all be all" economic system reason to pause. Now take in account the percentage that Karen states of young people who favor Socialism at 33%, and you blow it off as if that has no bearing on the present. As it currently stands, the Conservatives hold one small segment of what controls the government, and they are able to stop all forward motion of progress. So why can't 20 % or 33% do the same? The Conservatives are proving that it does not take a majority to have inf*luence In the decision making.

We have come to accept the fact that you have limited knowledge of how this country and this government works, and rely heavily on others to form your opinion, but before you claim any superiority based on polls, I would look deeper into all that goes into polls, and what power a "majority" of opinions actually means. It' also speaks volumes to your need to be in a majority that you continue to label anyone who defys and counters your nonsense as the "Left". It is your need to define the enemy in order to show superiority over them, so labeling those who oppose you is important to you. When you taut polls that claim people see themselves as conservative, that is with a little "c" conservative, and not the political movement by the same name, just as the founders claimed that their actions were liberal and that they set up a liberal government. My grandmother, who was a dyed in the wool Roosevelt Democrat, who grew up on a farm and lived through the depression, was conservative in her lifestyle, but would NEVER vote for a Conservative if her life depended on it. You are playing with semantics to give your political leanings the majority.

I have shown on numerous occasions a third candidate for president who has a track record of success in the things he says he would do, and is in more in line to the type of achievements that Americans are looking for, and in no way is he from the left. When is your majority actually going to do what they say, or say what they mean? Actions speak louder than words

Your rant is very revealing.... You mock and belittle conservatives on this blog as if they are stupid to believe what EVERYBODY else knows,... Now oyu mock because conservatives show that Conservatives are IN FACT more like everyone else that those on the left...

YOU mock in order to mock anything that opposes you and BY SO DOING you reveal that it is not your ideology that so wrong IT IS YOR AGENDA OF WIN AT ANY COST...smoke and mirrors worked once BUT the REAL WORLD has seen through it by now....

I am confident the majority will see beyond the smoke and mirrors from the leftf and VOTE for a NEW President.... Thats putting words into action.../

Hey Crimeridden
the more you post the more we can see Hoffman coming back..

AND yes IF in fact the Pope believes the Bible supports evolution then he is to be questioned... BUT I question YOU in that fact.... He might believe in Creation/evolution.... BUT I am sure he believes GOD created the Earth and ALL ON IT. Because that what the Bible says...
YOU CAN'T twist this to make it go away....

NEWSBRIEF: Chicago Tribune, Friday, 10/25/96, "POPE BOLSTERS CHURCH SUPPORT FOR EVOLUTION", by Stevenson Swanson, Tribune Staff Writer, Dateline: New York.

"In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church's position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is 'more than just a hypothesis' and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith. In a written message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences, the pope said the theory of evolution has been buttressed by scientific studies and discoveries since Charles Darwin ... "It is indeed remarkable that this theory has progressively taken root in the minds of researchers following a series of discoveries made in different spheres of knowledge', the pope said in his message Wednesday. 'The convergence, neither sought nor provoked, of results of studies undertaken independently from each other constitutes, in itself, a significant argument in favor of this theory..."

"If taken literally, the Biblical view of the beginning of life and Darwin's scientific view would seem irreconcilable. In Genesis, the creation of the world, and Adam, the first human, took six days. Evolution's process of genetic mutation and natural selection-the survival and proliferation of the fittest new species-has taken billions of years, according to scientists ..."

"The Pope's message went much further in accepting the theory of evolution as a valid explanation of the development of life on Earth, with one major exception: the human soul. 'If the human body has its origin in living material which preexists it, the spiritual soul is immediately created by God', the Pope said."

a little later on, we read, "God himself created the visible world in all its richness, diversity, and order."3 Teachings about God creating the universe are repeated in many other places, and in many other contexts, in this newest of the Catechisms. There is no doubt about what the Catholic Church teaches about the beginnings of this world: God created the Heavens and the Earth!4

"God created heaven and earth" is the clear teaching of the Roman Catholic Church.
But, what about the creation of man? What is the clear teaching of the Catechism? We read, "The first man was not only created good, but was also established in friendship with his Creator..."5 Man was created by his Creator, implying God the Father. Paragraphs 306-308 further speak of God and his creatures, including human beings.

I could find no listing for the subject of "Evolution" in this Catechism. Pope John Paul II cannot have it both ways.

Pope says evolution can't be proven
Updated 4/12/2007 11:22 AM

Pope Benedict XVI's new book, Creation and Evolution, praises progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.

Digg del.icio.us Newsvine Reddit FacebookWhat's this?
By Melissa Eddy, Associated Press
BERLIN — Benedict XVI, in his first extended reflections on evolution published as pope, says that Darwin's theory cannot be finally proven and that science has unnecessarily narrowed humanity's view of creation.
In a new book, Creation and Evolution, published Wednesday in German, the pope praised progress gained by science, but cautioned that evolution raises philosophical questions science alone cannot answer.

"The question is not to either make a decision for a creationism that fundamentally excludes science, or for an evolutionary theory that covers over its own gaps and does not want to see the questions that reach beyond the methodological possibilities of natural science," the pope said.

msnbc.com news services

updated 7/25/2007 2:55:35 PM ET

LORENZAGO DI CADORE, Italy — Pope Benedict XVI said the debate raging in some countries — particularly the United States and his native Germany — between creationism and evolution was an “absurdity,” saying that evolution can coexist with faith.

Only on msnbc.com
The pontiff, speaking as he was concluding his holiday in northern Italy, also said that while there is much scientific proof to support evolution, the theory could not exclude a role by God.

“They are presented as alternatives that exclude each other,” the pope said. “This clash is an absurdity because on one hand there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such.”

He said evolution did not answer all the questions: “Above all it does not answer the great philosophical question, ‘Where does everything come from?’”

What is the significance of the Pope's support of evolutionism?

On October 23, 1996, Pope John Paul II made a formal statement to the Pon*tifical Academy of Sciences that “fresh knowledge leads to recognition of the theory of evolution as more than just a hypothesis.” The Pope stated that creation and evolution can work together without any con*flict, as long as it is maintained that only God can create the human soul. The news media seemed to proclaim this statement as a triumph over creationism. Many throughout the world have been asking what significance this statement has on Catholic and Protestant theology. The following are a few thoughts on this topic:

Did the Pope really say that evolution was 'more than a hypothesis'? It's probable that the secular media misinterpreted the Pope's address.

The original French address says:

“Aujourd'hui, pres d'un demisiecle apres la parution de l'en*connaisances condesuisent a reconnaitre dans la theorie de l'evolution plus qu'*une* hypothese.”
In En*glish:

“Today, almost half a century after the publication of the En*cyclical [Humani generis, 1950], new knowledge has led to the recognition of more than *one* hypothesis in the theory of evolution.”

twist it boys twist it....
You still CAN"T get it to be truth....

"In a major statement of the Roman Catholic Church's position on the theory of evolution, Pope John Paul II has proclaimed that the theory is 'more than just a hypothesis' and that evolution is compatible with Christian faith."

Do you even read what you post?

So canative62, care to refine your position a bit on Jesus riding on dinosaurs and the world blinking into existence 3,00 years ago.

Oh, I guess the EARTH is the CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE too! Heck, THAT IS IN THE BIBLE and been proven to be very, very false. Let's list out some of the things the Bible is FACTUALLY WRONG about:

- The mobility of the sun: "The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day." - Joshua 10:12-13

- The stability of the earth "The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved." Psalms 93:1

- The shape of the earth "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;" Isaiah 40:22

etc. etc. etc. etc.

Odd how you pick and choose bits of your religion to believe without thought or question claiming everything in the Bible as the infallible word of god, yet, you so easily dismiss other parts.

Again, maybe you should READ the Bible you claim to believe. I doubt you have ever actual read the thing.

Why use the pope as anything representing fact? His church and his subordinates have a moralistically tainted past of supporting fascism to covering up sexual molestation by its ranks.

They represent a faith and not a fact, so how can the pope be used as evidence of anything fact based that contradicts or at the very least challenges the story on which his faith is predicated? He can tell you anything he wants, its his religion, but not his facts.

TheSovereign, I am trying to illustrate that even among the fringe, canative62 is even MORE on the fringe.

canative62 does not care about anyone but himself and his version of the truth. I'm starting to think even attempting to conversate with him is a waste of time.

I don't care about him believing in magic and fairy tales. That is his problem. What I DO have a problem with his is intolerant assertion that his beliefs and OPINIONS are actual FACT.

Many have tried both patiently, deliberately, politely and rudely point this out to him, but, for whatever reason, he instead of wanting to be part of a society chooses willful ignorance and self-imposed exile.

I honestly pity him. It must be difficult to be scared, stupid and alone.

What is really scary is, he is not alone...

Yes he is.

While there are others like them, their small-mindedness seemingly prevents them from interacting with anyone , or anything, that does not look, act, and talk exactly like they do.

While there may be many of them, they are all alone.

The majority of Americans (76% to 80%) identify themselves as Protestants or Catholics, accounting for 51% and 25% of the population respectively, according to one survey by Trinity College.[5] Other religions including Judaism, Buddhism, Islam, Hindu collectively make up about 5% of the adult population.[5][6][7] Another 15% of the adult population claim no religious affiliation.[5] When asked, about 5.2% said they did not know, or refused to reply.[5] According to the American Religious Identification Survey, religious belief varies considerably by region. The lowest rate is in the West with 59% reporting a belief in God, and the highest rate in the South at 86%.[5][8

Twenty percent of the American public believes that socialism is superior to capitalism, says a poll by Rasmussen Reports released on Thursday, April 9.

Asked the question "Which is a better system - capitalism or socialism?", 53% of those polled found capitalism the better system, 20% preferred socialism, and 27% were unsure. The survey did not define either capitalism or socialism, but Rasmussen also cites a December 2008 result saying that 15% of Americans prefer a government-managed economy.

NOPE NOT ALONE

less alone than those on the left...

The Hill Poll: Majority of voters believe Obama has changed country for worse

By Sheldon Alberts - 07/09/12 05:00 AM ET

Two-thirds of likely voters say President Obama has kept his 2008 campaign promise to change America — but it’s changed for the worse, according to a sizable majority.

A new poll for The Hill found 56 percent of likely voters believe Obama’s first term has transformed the nation in a negative way, compared to 35 percent who believe the country has changed for the better under his leadership.

The results signal broad voter unease with the direction the nation has taken under Obama’s leadership and present a major challenge for the incumbent Democrat as he seeks reelection this fall.

here another lonely conservative!!

Hill Poll: Majority of Likely Voters Think Obama Changed the US for the Worse

July 9, 2012
By Lonely Conservative 5 comments

The Hill has a new poll out this morning that should be making Team Obama pretty nervous. A majority of the likely voters surveyed believe he has changed the United States for the worse. Even twenty percent of Democrats surveyed feel that way, as well as a whopping fifty-five percent in the 18-39 age bracket.

Two-thirds of likely voters say President Obama has kept his 2008 campaign promise to change America — but it’s changed for the worse, according to a sizable majority.

A new poll for The Hill found 56 percent of likely voters believe Obama’s first term has transformed the nation in a negative way, compared to 35 percent who believe the country has changed for the better under his leadership.

The results signal broad voter unease with the direction the nation has taken under Obama’s leadership and present a major challenge for the incumbent Democrat as he seeks reelection this fall. (

The mobility of the sun: "The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day." - Joshua 10:12-13
After this miracle of GOD the Sun has not stopped in the sky..the earth just keeps on revolving.... right???

- The stability of the earth "The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved." Psalms 93:1
ARE you actually trying to tell us the earth has MOVED out of its orbit???

- The shape of the earth "It is he who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers; who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, and spreads them like a tent to dwell in;" Isaiah 40:22

an accurate translation for Circle would be as in Ball or globe...

poor desparate people...on the left they must feel the end is near for them

So any opinions, so few of yours.

Thinking is hard... Huh!

Yeah! What he said!

I knew it was pointless to present actual science to you ...

The Earth both revolves and rotates. I doubt you are even able to comprehend the rotational inertia of the Earth. Frankly, I doubt you even know what it is I'm talking about with inertia.

So, you your conterpoints:

1) So was the Bible WRONG and the miracle was not making the sun stand still, but, instantly stoping the rotation of the Earth? Either way you look at that, the Bible was wrong one way or another.

2) The Earth rotates at about 1,000 MPH. We know this because the circumference of the Earth at the equator is about 25,000 miles. The Earth rotates in about 24 hours. Therefore, if you were to hang above the surface of the Earth at the equator without moving, you would see 25,000 miles pass by in 24 hours, at a speed of 25000/24 or 1041 2/3 MPH . Multiply by cosine of your latitude to see how fast the Earth is rotating where you are. Earth is also moving around the Sun at about 67,000 miles per hour.

Key word in my FACTS: MOVE. The Earth is constantly moving and is NOT established or unchanging. Again, the Bible is WRONG!

3) One cannot transform a sphere into circle and still, as the bible suggest, see the whole of it. Of course, you could exclude the whole Western Hemisphere - as most people did back then INCLUDING your Bible ...

That was just a taste. Here are some more:

- The moon is a light source like the sun (Gen 1:16)
- The earth rest on pillars (1 Sam. 2:8)
- The earth has ends or edges (Job 37:3)
- Some 4-legged animals fly (Lev. 11:21)
- The earth was formed out of and by means of water (2 Peter 3:5 RSV)
- Turtles have voices (Song of Sol. 2:12)

I can go on and on and on ...

You can just admit that maybe, JUST MAYBE, the Bible is NOT A scientific text, but, a book of stories and allegories to help with MORAL and NOT SCIENTIFIC reasoning?

I doubt it because your pastor prefers brainwashed masses and you are happy to oblige.

Native, a circle is not a ball or globe, it is merely one angle of a ball or sphere.
That's like saying an equilateral triangle is a pyramid. That's one of the problems with extreme Bible believers, they try to make something rational out of something that is not.
The Earth is not the center of the universe as the Bible teaches. It is a small planet of a small solar system with other planets. The Sun is one star of over 150 Billion in just our galaxy, the milky way, which is just one galaxy of over 150 Billion other galaxies, some of which are thousands of times larger than our own.
If mankind knew anything about the real Universe, they would have never written the Bible.

Hello everyone, I need to apologize for getting off track of the topic of this blog. I let myself get distracted and ask canative62 questions on a tangent subject. Since the majority of these questions pretty much go unanswered, it is a waste of posting space and the readers' time. To get back to the original blog, I do not feel "shellacked" by Justice Roberts' and the Supreme Court's majority decision on the legality of the health care law. This country desperately needs affordable health care for citizens of ANY economic range. I do not think the health care law, as written, is perfect, but I would rather see a push to "improve and refine" rather than the Romney pledge to "repeal and replace". Many of the components of the law WILL help people, such as coverage for children up to the age of 26 years old under their parent's policy and prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage for preexisting conditions. Insurance companies make obscene profits, in my opinion, and need stricter regulations. I am not afraid of the direction that this country is going as far as supposed socialism, but it does concern me that there is such divisiveness and stubborn refusal to cooperate lest one political party seem to gain some "advantage". Yuck, politics!!! Sincerely, Karen

Job 26:7
He streches out the north over empty space,
and hangs the earth on nothing..

http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-e...
There are several Catechism of the Catholic Church citations in this article. I would think that those here who purport what the Catholic Church teaches would do their homework. The Church teaches that Catholics' may believe in evolution but not in Darwinism. They are also free to believe in a literal 6 days of creation.
As this article states who God infused a soul into man that is when human life began.
Also the Church saved hundreds of thousands during WWII through the underground and other ways. Read more that one side of history.

And then God said unto the Hebrew masses, "ooea, I got this guy I am dying for you to meet, little guy with a weird mustache but he kills his audience every time.."

"The Church teaches that Catholics' may believe in evolution but not in Darwinism."

That is simply not true leo_in_lathrop. First, you did not read your source correctly as much is referencing Vatican I. The Second Vatican Council has been the de-facto ruleset since 1962. From a different source, Archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, head of the Pontifical Council for Culture give a much different account and suggests that St Augustine and St Thomas Aquinas were first given visions of "evolutionary workings"

Also, from your source: "The Catechism explains that "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically as a succession of six days of divine ‘work,’ concluded by the ‘rest’ of the seventh day" "

That is the whole point: "Scripture presents the work of the Creator symbolically" SYMBOLICALLY!!

One more time: SYMBOLICALLY!

cantive62 has been arguing this whole time that everything in the Bible is LITERAL. He is 100% wrong on that account.

Karen, I agree with your last comment completely. There is never a discussion pertaining to healthcare reform outside the offerings of the two parties platforms. I have encouraged discussions on the subject from the very beginning some four years ago, and I continue to offer outside the box ideas still. It seems that either the subject matter is too complex for the average mind to wrap around, or we are a nation of lemmings waiting to see what crumbs the polititians are going to throw us.

The conversations here will always deviate from the main subject matter due to the lack of knowledge of the subject, and the need to present political rhetoric as fact. Fear is the only motivator during hard times, and fear does not rely on truth or fact, just opinion.

I would like to see healthcare reform actually reform the healthcare providers and not the payment system. I have not once seen anyone ask why we as tax payers are not receiving the financial benefits from all of the government R&D that we have paid for that allows the statement that we have the best healthcare in the world. I can see paying the ridiculous prices for healthcare if the providers paid for the R&D, but they didn't, we did. Why aren't we at least collecting license fees for the usage of the results and practices from this research and development. It would at least help with the national debt.

Canative, any suggestions on how to improve nd reform healthcare?

I am clearly not canative62, but, to further the discussion, I'll offer New Zealand as an example of healthcare reform.

Big-Pharma is regulated in that it cannot sell product to the customers directly, but instead, can only sell to the government directly. This "single payer" system allows the government to negotiate hard discounts and further also invest in R&D to reep the rewards after.

A far better system focuses more on delivering care to citizens over protecting profits for big-pharma.

I never understood how conservatives can be so big on MILITARY spending to protect the people from outside harm of other nations. However, the same people seem to have no problem allowing disease illness to attack the people of this country without any formal protection from the federal government.

How about this; nationalize healthcare BUT make all the doctors part of the MILITARY? That way, we can just tell the GOP we are adding more money to "national defense" and instead of defending against "Zee Germans" we can defend against CANCER, HEART DISEASE, DIABETES , etc. etc. etc.

Just to get things straight:

Everyone paying money to people with guns to keep other people with guns from killing us all = American Duty / Patriotism

Everyone paying money to people with medical training to keep disease and injury from killing us all = Socialism / Cosmopolitanism

I don't get it at all. What is the difference ideologically? There is none. Its only about one group actually having no real benefit and needing to invent war and confffflict to justify their own existence.

Think about it, if you could only pick one a soldier or a doctor be available to your family for life, which would you choose?

Catholics do read the bible literally. Our definitions of literal are different. We Catholics are instructed to read Scripture with regard to what was the intention that the writer trying to convey and what were circumstances during the time it was written. Also our interpretation cannot disagree with all the rest of Scripture.

Many Protesters & Evangelicals read Scripture in a "literalistic" manner. "What it says is what it means."

Amazing how John Ankerberg, John Weldon, and those who have created their own churches from their own authority, accept the 27 books of the New Testament as the inspired Word of God when it was the Catholic Church, guided by the Holy Spirit, in about 400 A.D. that was decided. They accept the Churches authority on what books belong & don’t belong in the Bible but not in other matters of Church authority.

The Catholic Church can historically trace their origin to Jesus the Christ and his apostles. What other Church can do that?

I have found some non-Catholic Christians like to constantly attack the Catholic Church. How Christian is that? We should be working together to feed the hungry, house the homeless, visit those in prisons, etc. They take Scripture in a literalist sense but in John 6 when Christ repeatedly says "you MUST eat My body and drink My blood" they take it as "figurative. But then again you must have a valid priesthood to do that.
Have a blessed day.

Leo, don't be defensive about your religion, or find a reason to explain it because others need to make political arguments about it. It is yours and you practice it as you believe it should be. There is a lot of history that is left out for the sake of one's argument, and in the end, the church is made up of people who are of their time, and so are their practices and customs, good - bad, or otherwise.

I make it no secret that I do not belong to a religion, but I do see wisdom in the acts and teachings of Jesus, I just don't see him in the Holy way that you do. From the statements that you have made in regards to the death penalty and abortion, you are consistent, and proactive, which to me says that you take to heart Jesus' teachings, and live them, and I respect you for that. I wish more people lived his teachings, and stopped looking for loop holes and technicalities for their own benefit.

My gripe is with those who wear their religion on their sleeve, and look to present authority from it. One of the liberties that we have from our Constitution is the liberty to believe how we desire, and the liberty to be free from how others believe.

Peace be with you....

What is sad to me is the fact that I haven't heard anyone complain about the right to an attorney where, if one can not afford an attorney, a public defender is assigned to him, but any kind of government subsidized health care or health insurance assistance is met with howls of outrage by some. I fully support the idea that we are all equal under the law, regardless of income, and that we all have certain rights that are constitutionally protected. Yet I can't help but be puzzled that some view health care, which deals with our most basic well-being, as a "pay to play" privilege. Even if we totally ignore the compassionate, humanistic side of affordable health care for all, it makes sense financially to pay for preventative care ( doctor's office visits and yearly check-ups) for those unable to afford it, rather than deal with the effects of debilitating and advanced illness that result when a disease or illness progresses because it was not diagnosed at an earlier stage. My family has both paid for health insurance and at times gone without it due to limited options. When we lacked health insurance, we paid everything (doctor's visits or emergency room treatment) ourselves. It was definitely a struggle, but we were able to make payments. Not everyone who lacks health insurance leeches off the system or gets free treatment. Speaking from personal experience, I just want to have AFFORDABLE health care coverage (paying my fair share) for piece of mind. Having health insurance is a huge weight of worry off a family. Those unsympathetic to the plight of the less fortunate, or those who lack employer-provided health insurance, would do well to imagine what their lives would be like without a health insurance safety net. Now why can't this net be extended to all citizens? Sincerely, Karen

The part that I find hard to understand is that those who complain the loudest about this version of healthcare reform themselves lack health insurance and offer no suggestions.

Reminds me of the old saying "cutting one's nose off to spite their face."

If the fear is a different form of government than is prescribed in the Constitution will evolve in solving the issue of healthcare affordability, then one first needs to broaden their view of what is in the Constitution, much in the way the Supreme Court has for the last 230 years. There are answers to the needs that Americans face, its just that we live in a time when those who have more do not feel its enough, or that a change will disrupt the cash cow.

Fear is an unusually powerful motivator to the ignorant and the weak. The history of our current healthcare system is one of a patchwork of temporary solutions with the intent that a permeant one would be later established. Much like the knowledge that Social Security funding needed to be addressed 30 years ago only to see the Congress kick the can down the road for future generations to solve, the same is true of healthcare.

When the going gets tough, we go watch TV, it has all the answers.

Hello everyone
Have you read what the Governor of Texas is going to do?
http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2012/j...
I know many seniors who receive Medi-Cal but at a share of cost,it's not free to them.
I can understand the share of cost,its reasonable to pay something that you can,not everyone wants to get something for nothing .
Maybe Texas instead of refusing to help people with Medicaid might try the share of cost program that other states have adopted.
Governor Perry has a history of refusing to help the poor.
Texas has the highest rate of uninsured people then any other state.
He isn't alone in this,other states are vowing to do the same thing.
It's easy to make these decisions when people like Perry are 100% covered and not burdened by having to make a decision to either be able to go to the Doctor or house,feed and clothe your family.
What we are seeing is "spiteful and stubborn" refusals to even give this Plan a chance simply because of Political differences,those who will oppose it have no better ideas to offer,and have absolutely no concern for the People if what Perry is doing and the others like him doesn't show this I don't know what does.
Someone Please save us from closed minded Politicians.
Sincerely,rozemist

The sad part rozemist is that the people that these programs were designed to help are being manipulated into thinking these programs are "evil."

Just look at canative62. By all accounts he would probably benefit the MOST, but, is the most vocal opposition.

I agree with you crimeriddendump many have been led to believe that these programs are no good.
I won't say they're not flawed because like everything else there is good and bad.
But these programs do help the people who need the help the most and that means that the programs are working more good and that is what they were intended for.
Sincerely,rozemist

No one is saying any of these programs are perfect. I'll repeat my first pst from here as it seems to have been lost from all the conversation derailments:

We already have socialized medicine. In our socialist system, we allow people to get sick enough that they need emergency attention, and then we let them show up at the emergency room to have problems that should have been caught early treated at massive expense in their later, more severe stages. If the patient has no insurance and cannot pay, the hospital just eats it, or the government pays.

ANYTHING is better than THAT!

Isn't game over? Didn't the Supreme Court take a vote?
Are there not many other important issues that these Politicians should be addressing

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/us_p...

Roze, you called what it is, a game.

Diversion, while kicking the can down the road is a game that Congress plays, and the right have become masters at it. There are bloggers on this site that like to point to polls, and recent polls are showing that the citizens want congress to move on. You can find all kinds of polls that support or do not support the law, but the citizens recognize its a law, just like corporations are people is a law, like it or not.

There is a reason this Congress has an approval rating of 13%, and it's not because they are tending to the business of the people... As we know them to be.

Hello everyone, I was rereading some of the posts and noticed that I wrote "piece of mine" when I should have written "peace of mind". I'll have to give myself "a piece of my mind" over that error! Sorry. Anyways, welcome back to the discussion, rozemist. I've missed your thoughtful comments. I read in the Modesto Bee today that the House of Representatives is STILL taking a vote on health care while in the Senate Republicans are drawing a hard line against supporting a Democrat-backed extension of tax cuts for those making less than $250,000 a year, because the wealthier citizens are excluded. God forbid that they compromise and agree to pass a bill that will help the average American, even if it doesn't fulfill all their (Republican) requirements. The same is true for Democrats on different issues. And so, unfortunately, the game continues and we, the American public, are the real victims and losers here. Sincerely, Karen

@Karen
thanks Karen for the welcome back.
I agree with your and Sovereign's comments.
You stated it best we and the American public are the victims, and we are caught up in the ridiculousness of their political games,that have far reaching consequences to many.
They seem to give no thought to giving productive ideas ,just stubborn refusals to compromise and see things through for the betterment of the American People.
I'm so disappointed in it all,it truly is sad.
We need this Health Care Reform,we need it desperately,I've known this for many years,but having been dealing with some health issues,that of course brings you directly in contact with the insurance people,and I'm sure "we all have our own horror story about that",it's just made it ever more clearer what I've known for years is how broken our current system is.It's not working.
And every time someone comes up with a plan that sounds like it might work,we go through this same type of draw a line in the sand mentality.
The plan is not flawless,no Plan could be,but what have they offered up ? Nothing !
They just want to sit up there and vote a NO to everything that comes from the opposition
even if it means it is a working plan that Americans will benefit from.
Sincerely,rozemist

My understanding was that the Supreme court voted that the "tax" was legal but that on nothing else was decided.
This is a matter of constitutional religious freedom. Religions are being forced to pay for something that, in their faith, it is intrinsically evil. Catholics are bound by their faith to serve the poor, homeless, those who need other social and economic needs. This is why the Catholic Church since the begining has established hospitals, social services, established the college system, etc. This is a core belief in our faith and not negotiable. So why we and others being forced against our constitutional rights to provide aborta facia drugs and most likely procedures that kills human life.

What????

First: What "Constitutional Rights" of yours are being violated Leo?

Second: Do you think that fact that there are some catholic hospitals in some communities that suddenly ALL catholics everywhere are absolved of financial responsibility for their own healthcare?

Third: KOSHER is "a core belief in [orthodox Judaism] faith and not negotiable" so, would it be part of the "Constitutional Rights" of these people to have non-kosher food BANNED in the United States? Or, what about not having to pay for food stamps for the poor unless they by kosher food?

Fourth: You live in CALIFORNIA - correct? California's Medicaid program is called Medi-Cal. Medi-Cal pays for ALL TYPES OF ABORTIONS AND ABORTION MEDICINE! So, you are already, according to you, " being forced against our constitutional rights to provide aborta facia drugs"

Please respond to each point as I am curious to understand how you justify your position.

Religious freedom does not obsolve a person or group from observing and following the laws of the land. This is an overstatement of one's rights under the Constitution, and is only used as a means to circumvent basic laws of the land with the preferd faith of a subset of society. Your claim would have more substance if you were of a faith where it's attendees followed it strictly and followed every rule verbatim. Like most followers of the Chritian faith Catholics pick and choose which rules they want to follow, and which ones the want others to follow. There are too many loop holes, and too little faith in their own rules to completely follow them..

I believe Jesus spoke to a similar situation with the advice "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's" This statement was in regards to taxes and coinage, but the meaning is the same. In your religion, if your heart is true and you follow authority's direction, your god will understand your intentions. You are also leaving out that the law was changed to require insurance companies to provide the medications you are against, and not your church directly.

The Bill of Rights states:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It states: Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF;

How clearer can that be?

Though some may think it the Cathoilic Church is not a "cafeteria" religion when it comes to doctrine or Tradition.

I only have a 10 minute break so I'll respond to the rest later.

Ok, so according to leo_in_lathrop, if tomorrow, I started the "No Taxes EVER" religion, then by virtue of the US Constitution the whole US TAX CODE would be UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Sorry, that is not the way it works in these United States.

I welcome your response to the next three points as clearly you had a a bit of a misunderstanding as to the actual meaning of the Constitution, so, now that you are better educated as to the actual law, we can move on to more specific points.

Again, I am very much looking forward to your responses to the above. Especially the FACT that you are already doing (paying for abortions in California) what you say would be, according to you, fundamentally against your non-negotiable core beliefs. According to the most recent data from the California Department of Health Care Services (2007) YOUR tax dollars payed for 80,069 abortions in California. http://www.dhcs.ca.gov/dataandstats/s...

As a reminder, "Obamacare" does not pay for ANY abortions. President Obama created Executive Order 13535 that specially limits federal spending on abortions.

That is reality. You have been paying for abortions in California for YEARS and seem to not really care, but, President Obama makes it a point to NOT pay for abortions and you still act like it is some affront to your personal liberty. Again, I would very much like to understand how you are able to justify your odd rational.

Leo, why did you stop at the religion part? You stated, "or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." yet I have not seen you complaining about people peacefully protesting, such as, at UC Davis, where the students were hosed down with pepper spray by the cops. Or when reporters are beaten by the cops while reporting at OWS rallies. Then there is all of that supposed cronyism between the unions and government when they exercise their right to "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Much like the rules in your religion, you pick and choose which rights are to be followed.

You have the freedom of speech, but you don't have the right to stand up in a crowded theater and yell fire, but somehow, you feel you can dictate how far your freedom of religion goes. Its only one of four rights listed in the first amendment, and you are willing to ignore three of them and put one that is of interest over all of them. One must remember that we have the freedom from religion, and your religion can not supersede our laws.

The reasoning you gave that you feel the government is some how prohibiting your religion is a stretch. Your concern is with the mandate that insurance companies are to offer birth control to employees of Catholic ran institutions. There is no mandate being placed on the church or its followers. You are feigning martyrdom in order to gain control.

It might help to understand why that amendment was established in the first case.

Sov, my concern is on the whole B of R but I've learned these blogs can spiral endlessly into many tributaries.

I beliviev the so called "occupy" crowd does have a right to voice their opinions the issue I have is when the trapple over the rights of others to do it. I re-quote: Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, OR PROHIBITING the FREE EXERCISE THEREOF;
Hitler passed laws that Jews were sub-human and therefore all their rights were taken away and sadly 6 million were murdered. Since 1973 over 50 million in this country have been murdered all under the farce the this is the law.

It is documented for almost 2,000 yrs what that Catholic Church has done for social justice. You state my religion can not supersede your laws.

The mandate is paid by the Insurance companies well who pays the premiums? That's just like saying I'll pay someone to do an injustice but it's not really me doing it's the person who was paid and actually did it.

The Church stands up for the dignity and respect for ALL human life. From conception to the grave.

Leo,

I'm not looking to split hairs, and I don't think you are either. I don't see where on this issue the government is PROHIBITING the FREE EXERCISE of yours or anyones religion by having the insurance companies offer a medical option to those employees who wish to utilize it.

It is the Catholic Church who has decided to cross certain lines when they set up their institutions. If their institutions were only employing church representatives to do their work, then our discussion would be different, but they hire from the general public, which puts them in a different situation. Lets even go into the subject of the insurance companies, the church may subsidize a portion of the insurance premium, but the employee is paying for the service, and should not be left out of available options because their employer has a different moral view.

Again, I am not looking to split hairs with you, but just to keep things in perspective. I am not questioning any of the benevolent work that the Catholic Church may perform, I think more churches should do so, but again, they can not use that for a reason to circumvent the laws of the land. I still say that if the whole flock followed the shepherds, and the flock and the shepherds followed their own teachings, this subject would be a moot one.

Maybe this is why the corrent administration is moving in what 63% THINK IS THE WRONG DIRECTION and it has "nothing to do with religion" BUT it actually does effect it in the end..

from
keywiki.org

Writing in the radical (and Democratic Socialists of America connected) Chicago magazine In These Times, in March 2008, Joel Bleifuss asserted;
In particular, Obama can be linked to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), the Democratic Party-oriented organization that is a member of the Socialist International
Democratic Socialists of America

Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) is the largest socialist organization in the US. It is one of two official U.S. affiliates of the Socialist International. It was formed in 1982 from a merger of the Michael Harrington led Democratic Socialist Organizing Committee and the smaller New American Movement.

DSA works inside the Democratic Party and has cross membership with the Communist Party USA, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, Socialist Party USA and the Green Party USA.

leo_in_lathrop,

To be blunt, you come off as either disingenuous or misinformed when you act like Obamacare will condem you based on your religious beliefs for providing abortions (when abortions are not covered) yet, your soul seems oddly at peace with paying for roughly 100,000 abortions a year under Medi-Cal.

Again, I don't see ANY Catholics up-in-arms about Medi-Cal. Why is that leo?

Native, you bore me with your phony polls. For every negative poll you can find, I could waste my time presenting one that says the opposite.

Spend some time explaining why the conservatively led congress has an approval rating of 13%, or why the Conservativly dominated Supreme courts approval rating is at 30% and sinking? They are 60% of our government, sounds to me why Americans feel we are going inthe wrong direction.

Try as you may, you will always be out of the mainstrea*m of Americans, and especially Californians.

There is only one poll that counts and that will come in November, and no poll will correctly predict that one, regardless of your distain for any President of the United States that isn't from the conservative party.

Not surprising coming from you... the posts on this blog prove over and over that anything that does not suit your side is to yoou boring stupid or a lie ... Interesting that the Health care you support was SO INSIGNIFICANT IN 2010 no one that ran on its passage got re-elected... That the famous keystone of the Obama administration had to have backroom deals with his own party's members to get it passed... Kind of explains why no one ran on it in 2010... BUT you keep on ignoring the polls untill Nov. then watch the changes that occured.

By Charles Krauthammer, Published: March 22

Obamacare dominated the 2010 midterms, driving its Democratic authors to a historic electoral shellacking. But since then, the issue has slipped quietly underground.

Study Finds That Voting For ObamaCare Hurt Democrats in 2010

Peter Suderman | March 9, 2012

Last week, I noted recent poll data suggesting that ObamaCare may hurt Democrats in this year's election despite promises from party leaders that public opinion would eventually come to favor the law. We won't find out whether that holds true until November, but new research from a team of political scientists indicates that voting for the health care law hurt Democrats significantly in 2010. The Washington Post's Sarah Kliff reports:

Brendan Nyhan, Eric McGhee, John Sides, Seth Masket and Steven Greene analyzed how Democratic supporters of the health reform law fared in the last round of House elections. They found that, on average, “the vote share of Democrats who supported health care reform was 5.8 points lower than that of the most comparable Democrats who opposed the bill.”

If those Democrats had voted against the law - and flipped that 5.8 percent in the opposite direction - the party would have netted 25 more seats. And that would have been enough to keep the Democrats in a majority.

go ahead find your biased propaganda polls.

Apr 25, 2012 Posted by Dustin Bass

As the presidential election nears, the voice of potential voters is becoming louder and clearer — at least according to polls. Before the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates take to their respective platforms, the Harvard University Institute of Politics gave young, potential voters their own platform to voice their concerns about American politics and issues.

The group conducted its 21st edition of the Survey of Young Americans’ Attitudes Towards Politics and Public Service, which interviewed 3,096 participants between the ages of 18-29.

The survey found the approval ratings for President Barack Obama, Democrats, and Republicans have declined by an average of 8% since November 2009 to March 2012, with Republicans leading the way with a 10% decrease to 25%. Obama’s approval rating stands at 52% after a 6% drop, and Democrats are 39% after dropping 9%.

Nationwide there has been an average approval decline of 7.75% for Obama, with the Northeast region falling from 66% in November 2009 to 51%. The survey reported only 20% feel the nation is moving in the right direction and that 43% feel it is moving in the wrong direction.

obviously the polls show one thing that you miss or chose to ignore as you all have ignored so many issues ...... I am not alone or lonely on the issues..... Which would indicate that if the left denies that, then there is a GOOD chance they are wrong in MANY other issues.... It might be they are wrong and deluded OR mi$guided by main$tream propaganda on all issues..... The polls show that many are not buying into Obama's plans for future or "CHANGE"

canative62,

Did you even read your last cut job before pasting it here? Honestly, did you?

I'll spell it out for you, and again, is is according to what YOU POSTED:

Approval Ratings:

Obama: 52% (-6%)
Democrats in Congress: 39% (-9%)
Republicans in Congress: 25% (-10%)

- Source Harvard University Institute of Politics and canative62

Again, this is YOUR article, not mine. It clearly shows that the GOP is not popular nationwide and that the President is more than twice as popular as the GOP congress.

What was your point again canative62?

Karen,
Since you're a Christian that believes in evolution. How do you feel it is effecting human evolution by punishing the hard workers and rewarding the ones that are not the "fittest". Also, Every single person I've ever known that receive government assistance (and it has been an awful lot) becomes DEPENDENT on these benefits and actually prefers the handout over hard work. I don't buy your "overwhelming majority would rather have a job BLAH, BLAH, BLAH". I've been in the gutter and know gutter people. I speak from experience.

"How do you feel it is effecting human evolution by punishing the hard workers and rewarding the ones that are not the "fittest".

"I've been in the gutter and know gutter people. I speak from experience"

So why would you ask Karen how she feels about an evolutionary factor on something you have first hand knowledge on?
Obviously you know next to nothing about Evolution as any 6th. grade student can tell you it takes many thousands, even millions of years for evolutionary changes to take place. Welfare has been around since when, the thirties or so?

Hello redeyedrider, My belief in evolution, the theory that all species develop from earlier life forms, has nothing to do with my conviction that we should be compassionate to those less fortunate than ourselves. Do you actually believe that someone who loses his job or home to foreclosure is not as "fit" as the person that is fortunate to retain employment? Or that people who face difficult times were not "hard workers"? Ever heard of the expression "There but for the Grace of God, go I"? You say that many people you know who receive public assistance prefer it to hard work. I am not going to deny YOUR personal experience, but when you write, "I've been in the gutter and I know gutter people. I speak from experience", you, yourself provide an exception to your observations. As a former "gutter" person, you do not seem content to depend on government assistance or want to shirk hard work. Are you claiming that you are unique and one of a kind or could you possible concede that others in unfortunate circumstances who you might not personally know could also have personal dignity and pride in accomplishment? I get it that when most around you act a certain way, it is easy to stereotype them, but that does not make it necessarily true for the greater number of people. When you take drugs or other substance abuse out of the equation, I think that would change things also. P.S. "BLAH, BLAH, BLAH? Seriously? Do you think we could have a discussion (even if we disagree) yet still maintain a certain respect? Sincerely, Karen

redeyedrider
every person you have ever known you said "becomes dependent on these benefits" that still does not cover the majority of the people.You've just witnessed a few ,that do not set the example for the people who have at times needed assistance in one form or another.
It's an unfair assumption to blame all for the actions of the few.
Certainly if you have been through hard times it should make you more compassionate not hardened to the needs of people who through circumstances that we don't always know have to ask for "help"
I'm not talking about a way of life,I'm talking about a "hand up" which is a vast difference.Most people really would rather have a job as hard as that is for you to believe,do you really think that they can get very far on assistance ,that that is going to sustain them ,I'm mean really the assistant programs are designed to only help a family or (person) meet the absolute "below basic needs".
I don't know what your experience has taught you but it seems to have embittered you ,I hope as human beings we never lose our capacity to recognize that people sometimes hit a rough spot ,and need help to get through it.Maybe that all sounds like misplaced sentiment to you,but I'm certainly glad I still have that within me after all these years.
Sincerely,rozemist

Karen
Being a Christian surely you accept the fact that we are in fact taught to help the "needy" the Bible further teaches as I am sure you realize that laziness is not a Godly trait. As I have noted I know relative who were in fact
"intake workers" at welfare and I say that the 1% of abuse is in truth a REPORTED number which does not consider the actual fraud which is on applications... I know that supervisors have told the workers not to worry about questioning the applications either because they do not have time OR because they do not want to. It is VERY easy to see that abuse is likely far more widespread.
I don't believe that I have read anything that indicates conservatives want to actually deny aid to those who actually need it. The concept of cutting fraud and abuse is in no way a kin to cutting off entitlements for the needy... Rather I would think that cutting fraud and abuse would save money and make more money available to those who REALLY need it. Which should be the goal of all those who are in fact compassionate. Those who oppose such a concept leave the door open to wonder if they actually want to help and don't know how OR are they simply BUYING the votes from the needy with tax dollars.
Your comments about the programs being designed to meet absolute basic needs is how it ought to be.
Once again when a key member of one one party( Ms Pelosi) claims "entitlements are growing the economy", would also give rise to question the real purpose behind entitlements... AS basic needs do not actually grow the economy it takes disposable income, where people can buy "above their NEEDS" to grow an economy.
There are in fact many examples of people who prefer to make the entitlements a "lifestyle" How widespread it is can only be determined when the Apps are more efficently controlled and serious consideration given to the actual problem of abuse.

I am pretty sure that in the letter this past week from the Democratic Party where Obama claimed he want people to Achieve the "Amereican Dream" he was not referring to living off the governmnet....
BUT viewing thie posts here MAYBE that is the Party's concept of the American Dream...especially if it maintains a sizeable voting block.
Possibly it should be realized that it is human nature for some to accept handouts to make life easier. I have found that many who get handouts eventually find it as a source of getting by and do not really seek other solutions...

Karen
maybe the best way to promote an enviroment for accomplishing the American Dream is to allow for "disposable income..(after taxes spendable income) Increasing taxes on the rich (those who actually SPEND on non essential goods and services) won't do... We in fact could get people out of their immediate crisis without promoting an entitlement lifestyle. First and foremost by realizing that entitlement lifestyles are not really helpping anyone but the politicians who use them for re-election.
How about cutting the TAX BREAKS which in fact are pushed by special interests to benefit thier businesses.
This would serve to important purposes. One, it would increase the revenue by forcing payment of taxes without allowing exemptions. A flat rate tax could also be a solution where everyone pays the same % no matter what the income level, with the possibility of cutting the hudge bureauacrcy of the IRS. Then, it would serve notice to special interests that this is still a government of the people for the people and by the people. Taking it beyond the current concept of the people elect the officals then special interests force them to do their bidding until the next election. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution where it is designed for elected officials to get elected then run things they way they choose in the hope they will still get re-elected by blowing smoke in the next election campaign.

Hello canative62, I don't believe that Democrats want to keep citizens dependent on welfare so that the Democratic Party can maintain a sizable voting bloc. I don't have any hard, verifiable figures on how welfare recipients vote, do you? Also, context is important. Perhaps those making less money support Democrats because they believe that Party is more attuned to their needs and concerns. But that is mere speculation and could lead us to a "class warfare" distraction.

I think that your other posts have raised interesting points worthy of discussion. Much as I remarked to redeyedrider, I won't dispute your personal experience with welfare applications. But I would note that it is mere speculation to say any application not fully investigated is automatically a fraudulent one. Even if this proved true for your relative's experience, you can not justifiably extrapolate that to the greater population. You have no VERIFIABLE documentation that welfare abuse or fraud is more widespread. That said, I agree with you that it IS important to reduce abuse and fraud so that the money and help finds its way to those who truly depend on it. I think that both Republicans and Democrats would agree with that statement. The difference of opinion seems to be on the best way to achieve this goal. It appears to me that Democrats may fear that in a Republican zealousness to tighten the rules and cut funding, the truly deserving may also suffer. I haven't made up mind on the flat tax issue, so I won't attack or defend that position. However, I completely support your assertion that tax breaks for special interests and big businesses need to be addressed and loopholes eliminated. This is a complex problem that needs rigorous, committed study and action. Sincerely, Karen

Karen
As a Christian I would hope you would understand my stance better than others... I wear a T shirt that says " my faith and politics cannot be separated."
further it says, " blessed is the nation who's God is the LOrd..
Now when you understand as a believer that the Bible says "all scriture is inspired by God" not some not all but,
Then the Bible says that God knows the plans He has for us before we were formed in the womb.
The Bible also says that a man who lies with a man as with a woman is cursed.
The Bible also says that a nation who turns its back on God will be cursed.
These concepts alone make me very strong against the current political regime.
When we consider a group that so blatantly ignores what the Bibles says it is difficult to understand how any Christian could overlook the agenda of such a Party
To put a faith in a creation theory (not as you do, where it is still created by God) BUT by the foolish notionthat life came from nothingness by accident is similar to the ODDS of a tornado hitting a junk yard and leaving a operational 747 jet liner in its wake.
I don't know of too many people who would really put their lives at risk on such a plane, yet so many put their eternal life at risk with similar odds by denying GOD. BUT God gives us all the freedom to choose, as for me and my family we choose the Lord God.
Who you support is up to you BUT Christians should believe enough in their faith to make it their lives not just a hobby for Sundays...

There seems to be an implied impression here that those collecting assistance from our fellow citizens through the use of our tax dollars are somehow going to "gutter people" or the lazy. It must be noted that "gutter people" typically tend to be those who are chemically dependent and/or mentally ill. These people are not generally the ones on welfare, and are the ones that Jesus spoke of needing our assistance more than others.

The reason that we as Americans and tax payers give assistance to those in need is due in part because we are the richest nation in the world, and should use those riches to assist those who fall on hard times, or are just not equipped with the tools to compete on a high level that will bring them great wealth and comfort. There is a wide spectrum of people who fall into this group of citizens, whether it is those who lost a job and has debts that are incurred by someone who is living the prescribed "proper life" and can not afford to continue those commitments that were not hard when properly employed. Then there are those who get an illness that drains their finances and puts them in a situation where they can't work. Insurance needs to be paid for in order for them to continue paying for the service regardless of how much has been paid in prior. They do not continue to pay for medical needs if one looses their employment and means to pay the insurance premium.

To call the recipients of our assistance anything other than misfortunate and in need of our help is not only cruel but also coldhearted. If people become dependent on the assistance as a means of sustenance, it is not because it provides a great lifestyle, but rather a sign that there are no opportunities that allow for them to move beyond their predicament. I drove through the older sections of Stockton yesterday, and since it, like Manteca and many other cities in this valley, have moved away from being farming communities to "bedroom communities" the employment opportunities are no longer there. The basis of income didn't move from food processing to some type of manufacturing or some other production type economy, so where do these people get jobs? Working for the government? Those jobs are diminishing through the austerity movement.

There are two paradigms of Christianity being presented here, one that is self righteous and dictatorial as you see from Canative and redeyerider, and the benevolent and caring that Karen and Leo present. The fact that Redeyerider questions Karen as to her technical reasoning to evolution shows that Christianity is not a spiritual experience for him, but rather a personal structure for him, which is understandable since he has professed to having a chemical dependency in the past. Coming from alcoholic parents, I have see this in my life where one obsession is replaced with another. It has been said many times that an ex-smoker or an ex-drug user are the worst to be around if one is partaking in smoking or recreational alcohol/drug use.

No one here is stating how much this "welfare" costs the american tax payer. It is about 10% of our national budget, which is a small drop in the bucket. Why is there no complaint on the right for the "welfare" that is handed out to the oil companies who are not facing financial hard times, or the farm subsidies of which 75% goes to the top 25% wealthiest farmers, some of who happen to be in our Congress and Senate.

There is a large amount of corruption in this country, and to focus that attention on the neediest of our society as opposed to the most powerful and wealthy just goes to show how powerful propaganda is in our culture. As I keep saying, the right keeps stepping over dollars to pick up nickels.

To give TEMPORARY assistance is not the issue here.... PRoviding a dependent lifestyle is in fact degrading and cruel... To say to the unfortunate that the only lifestyle they are capable of is dependence is cruel...
Once again no one is saying we should not provide temporary assistance.
Certainly cutting fraud and abuse is NOT refusing to provide temporary assistance ...except for those who chose to use such assistance for political gain... getting a voting block from needy people..

Please feel free to quote the verse where Jesus said we should lift up the drug adicts and drunks... The Bible says BE NOT DRUNK WITH WINE BUT be filled wiith the Holy Spirit
BUT feel free to slant and twist as you usually do...

I'm curious what does the BIBLE say about turning your back on human beings that need help?
I'm reading a lot of comments like
"The Bible also says that a nation who turns its back on God will be cursed",
How do you suppose God would feel about humans turning their back on humans ?
Did Jesus not preach to show compassion and understanding.
Acts 20:35
In all things I have shown you that by working hard in this way we must help the weak and remember the words of the Lord Jesus, how he himself said, ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive.’”

Deuteronomy 15:11
For there will never cease to be poor in the land. Therefore I command you, ‘You shall open wide your hand to your brother, to the needy and to the poor, in your land.’

I don't go much into scripture quoting,I think to "live and practice ones faith" says more then words.I could quote all day and what would that really mean ,unless I really lived my life within the meaning of those words.
But there is so much talk here of Christians and faith on the one hand and then on the other there is "providing help offers a dependent lifestyle",degrading was also thrown in there.Why does offering help mean that it will turn into a lifestyle by the person(s) receiving it.
Then you have the blogger who likens people who need help as gutter people!
And are we also now to believe that as a Christian the Christian thing to do is your suppose to turn your back on people who suffer with addictions ,isn't addiction an illness? Do we refuse to help people now because of that as well.
Do you think that Jesus looked at a person with eyes of condemnation when they stood before him at possibly the lowest time of their lives.Do you suppose Jesus said "I'm not going to offer that person help because he is an addict,or he will expect help over and over again"
I'm truly very confused about what the meaning of "Christian" is suppose to represent.
I think I prefer the poor ,non-Christians "I believe they are referred to as "sinners" who simply help someone because it is the right thing to do.
Sincerely,rozemist

Every time someone mentions Jesus, he is either drinking wine or passing out wine, sounds to me like Jesus was quite the party animal...no wonder he had all these guys following him around, not to mention his girlfriend Mary, after all, wine was not easy to come by back then, it's not like they could just drop by the 7-ll, now with Jesus, they had a guy would could make water into wine. I bet the local vintners didn't like that one bit, which I might add, was a Roman controlled industry, which also could explain a few things about how this all ended.

Rozemist
Define "need help"... Show any scripture where God healed alcoholics or drug adicts.
Feel free to quote where Jesus went to Southside park and handed oout food and haircut and clothes to the poor as churches in Manteca do.
SO please explain to me how being a continuous source of livelyhood for some who refuse to get up and help themselves is actually helpping them. Is it not more like a form of slavery to continue them in a lifestyle of handouts as long as they follow the rules put on them to keep them in perpetual poverty?
Once again consider decades long war on poverty after millions of dollars the poverty is in fact worse.... Could it not be that throwing all this money out to them with out some way to pick them up is a waste for them and us.
Then remember the parable taughth by Jesus where he tells about the 3 men one given 5 talents who made 10 and was told well done. The other given 2 talents and returned with 5 also told well done.. while the thrid hid his talent in the ground and was cast out for being lazy and his money was taken from him... That too is a Bible story.... Also remember that each of us are in fact given actual talents to use for God and for mankind and not to use it is wastefulness of God's grace.
"But there is so much talk here of Christians and faith on the one hand and then on the other there is "providing help offers a dependent lifestyle",degrading was also thrown in there.Why does offering help mean that it will turn into a lifestyle by the person(s) receiving it".
the fact ARE that many do in fact turn it into a lifestyle simply because it is not handled correctly by the governmnet. Mainly because welfare is a political tool to BUY votes from the entitlement core of the Party and in fact untouchable even when it could help all of us to HELP them get off the entitlements saving the money for those who are in fact uable to help themselves...
I am not claiming we should not help the alcoholics and drug adicts.... In fact I am currently working on providing help to one now who does not wish help but is neglecting her children. However I know for a fact ignoring the problem is not good for society and giving them money to get more drunk is not help in any form. So they need different help which by the way is also available from several churches in Manteca. YES in truth Christians do offer help to all of these problems.

"Feel free to quote where Jesus went to Southside park and handed oout food and haircut and clothes to the poor as churches in Manteca do."
I don't think Jesus showed up at Southside park but he apparently showed up lakeside to hand out fish and wine (There's that wine thing again). Haircuts weren't a priority back then, clothes were pretty much the same for men and women and I don't remember reading anything about Jesus asking for a drug test for anyone wanting some fish-N-Chips with his water/wine on the side.

Proverbs 20:1
wine is a mocker, strong drink is raging; and whosoever is deceived therby is not wise.
Proverbs 23:20
benot among wine bibers; the drunken and glutton shall come to poverty.

Proverbs 12; 27
the slothful man roasteth not that which he took in hunting; but the substanse of a dilgent man is precious.
2 Thessolonians 3: 10
For even when we were with you , this we commanded you , that if any would not work neither should he eat

Matthew 11:5
"the blind recieve their sight,the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed, and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gfospel preached to them." also Luke 7:22

Matthew 25:35
I was hungered and you gave me meat, I was thirsty and you gave me drink I was a stranger and you took me in naked and yoou clothed me I was sick and you visited me I was a prisoner and yopou came unto me..."
The very things that MANY Manteca Churches do in this city

Churches run a homless shelter on yosemite near the Museum , local churches visit hospitals and at least the church I attend goes to both mens and womens prisons.. at least 5 churches are on the list for food pantry and several also give out clothes. some rotate at Southside park bringing food clothes haircut and the godpel as well as childrens entertainment.
And these churches do all of this without using one dime of tax dollars and they do not ask anyone to vote for them in any election...

What is your point again canative62? Are we just posting random bible quotes? Ok, here are mine!

"I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man. She must be quiet." (1 Timothy 2:12)

"Happy those who seize your children and smash them against a rock." (Psalm 137:9)

"If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity." (Deuteronomy 25:11-13)

I think Reagan's quote "Trust, but verify" serves us well when it comes to determining individual welfare eligibility.

Hello canative62, In your last post to me you imply that a true Christian would find it impossible "to overlook the agenda of such a Party" (Democrat) who you claim "so blatantly ignores what the Bible says". You condescending end with, "Who you support is up to you BUT Christians should believe enough in their faith to make it their lives not just a hobby for Sundays". The innuendo here is that Christians who are Democrats are somehow only "Sunday Christians" or not fully committed to our faith. Frankly, I don't attend church much at all as I believe my faith is a personal connection between God and myself. How many times a person goes to church is NOT a true reflection of his spirituality or relationship to God. There are supposedly devout church goers who make a show of their piousness, but once outside the church building and in their cars, they cut off their fellow Christians in the parking lot. I am not going to get into a scriptural duel with you since we could both scour the Bible to find verses out of context to support our positions. But I will say that there is NO MENTION of abortion in the Bible. As far as the verses on homosexuality, that is a reflection of the times. Can you see that in that time frame, with harsh conditions, the fragility of life, and competition from those who worshiped idols or other gods, that the Old Testament would encourage heterosexual relationships in order to make the tribe numerous (through births) and thus stronger and able to fight off others and defend and spread the belief in God? If you insist on taking EVERYTHING the Bible says or admonishes LITERALLY, then you must not shave, eat pork or shellfish, and you must stone adulterers. In reality, these were also reflections of cultural (not necessarily religious) norms of the times, although some are still practiced by Orthodox Jews. You can't rightfully pick and choose the Bible verse that coincide with your personal beliefs and ignore the ones that don't if you stress a literal interpretation of the Bible. I tend to look more at the symbolism and parables in the Bible. It is insulting to suggest that Democrats can't be good Christians or as sincere in their religion as you, simply because we do not share YOUR beliefs. Also, Christians have no monopoly on morals, compassion, or good works. Other religions also uplift humanity and atheists can demonstrate just as much social conscience. As a Democrat, many of the goals of the Party are aimed at social justice for all American citizens, the fair opportunity for all to advance themselves without fear or prejudice, and the protection of the weakest and vulnerable among us. I see government assistance not as a Socialist slide, as you seem to, but actually a manifestation of the values and caring that Jesus set for us by his example. Sincerely, Karen

Luke 9 : 12 - 18

five loaves and two fish NOT ONE WORD ABOUT WINE...

Mark 6:33-44
five loaves and two fish
NOT ONE WORD ABOUT WINE

Matthew 14: 14-21
five loaves and twqo fish
NOT ONE WORD ABOUT WINE...
I guess the Bible expert who does not believe the Bible dosen't really know waht it says either

in Psalms 137
it is in fact talking about the experience of the Babylonian captivity and talking about babylonian children...

BUT you forgot the part about how the Bible says "judas went out and hanged himself" the Bible also says "go and do likewise"
Twist it boy, twist it... Like a good little liberal..

Hello canative62, One last point to the previous lengthy rebuttal: Churches and church organizations and food banks do amazing charity work and should be commended. But if government assistance programs to the needy should dry up,the churches would be overwhelmed and could in no way meet the needs of so many in dire straits. Even locally, in Manteca, we can not meet the demands for sufficient homeless shelters. Sincerely, Karen

So our moral values should be determined and based upon the times in which we live? WOW! Count me out.

Jesus. "Why do you call me Lord and not do as I command you"
You seem to misunderstand the Bible the Old Testament is the Law and the prophecy pointing to Jesus and His redemption... After Jesus died on the cross He was the final sacrifice. In ACts 15 it explains how the council and James the elder of the Church, issued a proclamation not to trouble Gentiles turning to the Lord with JEWISH restrictions but to absatain from eating meat sacrificed to idols not to eat meat from strangled animals ... Pork and shellfish are OK. Remember the reason this came up is that Peter had a dream that he could eat unclean food for "what God has cleansed let not man condemn"
It seems that if GOD knows the plans He has for us before we were formed in the WOMB it would be a VIOLATION of God's will to abort that life.

As far as the attitude regarding same sex... God is the same yesterday today and forever... OUR times have nothing to do with changing HIS plans.
He said for a man to lie with a man as a woman is wrong... He did destroy Sodom for such behavior..

Sorry Karen
But my reposne about the work Manteca Churches were doing was in response to the apparent challenge that Christians don't do what the Bible says...

canative62, I see you understood my sarcastic query.

Many Democrat goals for social justice pave the road to hell, but they are marketed to the public as compassionate feel good legislation. Again, count me out.

canative62,

KarenPeasall has a GREAT point! Since accepting Jesus Christ as your personal savior, have you EVER eaten RARE meat? If so, how do you feel about committing a sin that is just as egregious as a homosexual relationship according to the Bible? What about Eating leavened bread during the Feast of Unleavened Bread? Same thing!

Why is it ok for you to completely ignore some Bible verses while at the same time stubbornly insisting others are infallible truths? Could you tell me the process for deciding which parts of the Bible are more important than others?

Sources:

Leviticus 17:10
Leviticus 18:23
Exodus 12:15

Hey Dump, Tell me the Bible verses that tick you off the most and those would be the ones that I would insist you adhere to. That way we will get you through the most difficult ones first and then it's a piece of cake. Just trying to be of help. FYI, NEVER NEVER NEVER have I eaten rare meat. Mine is always charcol like. Just FYI thats all. Hoff try getting happy.

Friendo

I have never eaten rare meat either I like mine med. well... Unleavened bread never..OH well

BUT then the crimer must not be able OR willing to actually read sinc I just dealt with that issue from the book of Acts

so crime doesn't haved to look it up..

You seem to misunderstand the Bible the Old Testament is the Law and the prophecy pointing to Jesus and His redemption... After Jesus died on the cross He was the final sacrifice. In ACts 15 it explains how the council and James the elder of the Church, issued a proclamation not to trouble Gentiles turning to the Lord with JEWISH restrictions but to absatain from eating meat sacrificed to idols not to eat meat from strangled animals ... Pork and shellfish are OK. Remember the reason this came up is that Peter had a dream that he could eat unclean food for "what God has cleansed let not man condemn"

I have a question

What religion is there in the world that determines/changes its actual beliefs based on the current moral values.????

No, I can read just fine. So by your logic, the ban on homosexual behavior would be "JEWISH restriction" right? It is right in-between the the other "JEWISH restrictions" you talk about.

Again, how do you decide which versus to follow and which to not? There whole of Leviticus is "JEWISH restrictions" so, could you enumerate for me which you pay attention to and which you ignore. Or, do we just say all of Leviticus is irrelevant to Christians?

Hello canative62, You claim the reference to God knowing his plans for us before we were formed in the womb means that abortion is a violation of God's will. What do you base that assertion on? I take it to mean that God knows us and has a purpose for us, even before we started developing in the womb. But what that purpose is exactly is up for debate. Maybe it WAS God's purpose that a fetus be aborted, just as people say it is God's will when a woman tragically loses a fetus by miscarriage. If you say that those who decide to get an abortion are murderers, then how can you absolve God of the responsibility for miscarriages? If one act is God's will, how do you know FOR CERTAIN that the other choice isn't already known by God and a part of some plan of his that we don't yet comprehend? I think it is presumptuous to pretend we understand God perfectly or grasp his full intentions for us, when we are so far beneath him in intellect and power. We are not his equals and never will be so it bothers me when some act like they have all the definitive answers to philosophical and religious complexities. I leave it in God's hand and try to live my life by treating others in a respectful way, regardless of our differences. It appears our take on God and religion is quite divergent, so it is probably not productive to keep hashing over this. Take care. Sincerely, Karen

Romans 1:18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness..
V$ 27
and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and recieving in their own persons the due penalty of their error..
The above ver$e are in the New Testament the NEW COVENANT..

canative62, what does ancient pagan idolatry have do do with anything discussed above?

Do you even understand what you are posting? Do you know the historical context under which Paul wrote the Epistle to the Romans?

Right, Paul wasn't writing a letter to Romans living in the 1st Century! NO! He wrote it for YOU in the 21st ...

Native,Jesus never turned water into wine? Are you sure? I seem to recall he did. Maybe the Catholic version, which being the first Christian religion, would be the directors cut, doesn't match your edited for Evangelicals version.

"Old Testament is the Law and the prophecy pointing to Jesus and His redemption... "

The Bible which is the readers digest of the Torah to reflect the linage of the Messiah to David the linage goes to Joseph as the story goes and the claim is that Jesus was the Messiah. Yet Joseph is not Jesus' biological father god or that angel is so the story goes.

The Torah speaks of a coming Messiah yet the Jews rejected Jesus as the Messiah. It is their religion they should know.

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

If anyone would have been the Messiah it should have been James since he was Joseph's real biological son we all know James he is the Billy Carter of Christianity with that famous brother of his.

Father, forgive them for they are ignorant and do not know what they are doing or saying..

They are cluless about your word...

Luke, I am you father.....

NO!!!!!!!

Come, join me in the dark side.......

canative62, you real DON'T KNOW about the actual historical context of the Bible, do you?

AMAZING!

Have you even read the thing or do you just repeat what others tell you?

Sorry pressed post instead of preview. It should read:

canative62, you really DON'T KNOW about the actual historical context of the Bible, do you?

AMAZING!

Have you even read the thing or do you just repeat what others tell you?

"Show any scripture where God healed alcoholics or drug addicts." - Ahhhh. its about the technicalities, the exact wording that this religion is based. I guess this implies that god and Jesus and their disciples were a bunch of Jewish contract lawyers and those who read into the meanings are going to be sued. Where is Alan Dershowitz when we need him to better explain this contract?

Seems it's not good enough for some here to firmly disagree, they must include remarkable rudeness as well. A bellwether of their personal character.

"Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength."
- Eric Hoffer

canative62,

So you must have NEVER read the Bible then canative62! Because, people who have read the Bible are aware of The Bethesda Pool of Mercy and a specific quote from the Book of Matthew a bit into chapter 19.

If you would like me to elaborate, please, let me know.

Canactive doesn't your book say not to publicly pray to shove God down our throats? He says not to do as the pagans do, don't flaunt around publicly praying like a fool does, do it privately beside your bed. Yet here you are typing out a prayer to all of us. You should have done it by yourself in your room.
Good thing Jesus isn't OT God(even though he claims to be one and the same), or else you might get struck down by lightning, or God might tell us to put you in the center of town tomorrow to be stoned.

CN,
I believe you are pointing out something I like to bring up, that the weak minded only want to wear their religion, and their patriotism on their sleeve for all to see. They feel it brings them authority and standing in the community.

I also believe that this does fall under a sin all be it a small one, but then, there are no small sins, just sin.

Yes CN he did speak to those issues they seem to have forgotten. Matthew 6:6- 6:10

This guy said it quite well breaks it down

" Beware the Teachers of the Law (20:45-47)

"While all the people were listening, Jesus said to his disciples, 'Beware of the teachers of the law. They like to walk around in flowing robes and love to be greeted in the marketplaces and have the most important seats in the synagogues and the places of honor at banquets. They devour widows' houses and for a show make lengthy prayers. Such men will be punished most severely.' " (20:45-47)
The teachers of the law are probably the same group as the Scribes and Pharisees. Jesus teaches his own disciples to be wary around them and wary of becoming like them. The word translated "beware" is Greek prosecho, "to be in a state of alert, be concerned about, care for, take care." Here it means, "beware of, be on one's guard against something."[1] In Luke, Jesus characterizes these "teachers of the law" in six ways (perhaps a condensation of the "seven woes" against the Pharisees in Matthew 23).

They like to walk around in long, flowing robes. The word "long robe" or "flowing robe" is Greek stole, "robe" especially "a long, flowing robe."[2] We get our English word "stole" from this Greek word. This long robe is probably the long, flowing garment of the learned, called the tallith.[3] In Matthew, Jesus observes, "Everything they do is done for man to see..." (Matthew 23:5). The point here is there love of being seen and recognized as scholars. The pride of scholarship is alive and well in the Third Millennium.

They love to be greeted in the marketplaces. The term "Rabbi" means "great one." Jesus warned his disciples against pride of titles (Matthew 23:7-11). How many clergymen insist on proper titles? This insistence is not often a mark of humility but of pride.

They love to have important seats in the synagogue meetings. A seat on "the platform" keeps one in view and emphasizes one's importance. For those leading a service, sitting up in front smoothes the flow of the service, but how many church leaders want a spot on the platform for the wrong reasons?

They love the spot of the honored guest at banquets, beside the master of the house or the host.

They devour widows' houses. Perhaps their position of trust as leaders or judges tempts them to take advantage of the most defenseless members of society -- widows. Katesthio means "to eat up ravenously, eat up, consume, devour, swallow," and is used figuratively as "destroy, consume, waste, or rob." Here it may mean appropriating widows' houses or estates in an unethical manner.[4] Jesus' Parable of the Unjust Judge (18:1-8) was probably recognizable to his hearers. Perhaps Jesus is referring to a continuing scandal perpetrated by unscrupulous but pious Pharisees.

Cont..........

For show they pray long prayers. The words "for a show" translate Greek prophasis, "falsely alleged motive, pretext, ostensible reason, excuse." Here it means, "for a pretext, for appearance' sake."[5] I don't know about you, but I've heard my share of long prayers, prayed only to impress people, not God.

This is a scathing indictment of the "teachers of the law." Why did Jesus warn his disciples of them? For fear that the leaders of the Christian church would become corrupted by pride, greed, and hypocrisy. My dear friends, may God deliver us disciples from our temptations and sins. "

http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/20_4...

Friendo
amazing how those who do not believe in God use the Bible ,that they refuse to believe to mock and belittle believer$.
I Timothy 6:20
O Timothy guard what has been entrusted to you, avoiding worldly and empty chatter and the opposing arguments of what is falsely called knowledge, which some have professed and thus gone astray

Itseems reasonable that as the Bible states will happen in the last days thjat there will in fact be false teachers and people who claim to be believer$ who mislead and misguide others. It is also noted that "religion" including in Christianity that is made up of mankind that there will be errors.because men are not perfect... Interesting that some cry foul for Christians "FORCING THEIR FAITH DOWN THROATS" Yet the radical muslums who kill unbelievers are never mentioned.
Meanwhile posting a prayer similar to the one Jesus did pray on the cross in public is evil?..
OH well I guess the misunderstanding that Jesus could not be the Christ because Joseph was not His real father, Reason would say that UNLESS God was the Father then Jesus would just be a normal person rather than the Son of God... OH by the way how do those who think like that reconcile the scripture that says the unforgivable sin is denying Jesus is GOd.
.Matthew 10 :14-15
Whosoever shall not recieve you nor hear your words, when you depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. Verily I say to you it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement than for that cty.

Matthew 28 : 18 - 20
Jesus came up and spoke to them , saying" All authority has been given to Me in heaven and earth. GO therfore and make disciples of all the nations baptizing them in the name of the Fther and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you: and lo I am with you always even to the end of the age.

We use the Bible to show your own hypocrisy, not because we believe it has any authority or truth but because you do. You know the saying "how do you like a taste of your own medicine"? Yeah...

And here we go with the Muslim thing again, always pointing out there are Muslims canative, good one. Now when a Muslim joins this place and starts quoting the Quran, I will be saying what I'm saying to them. But considering you're a Christian and I'm talking to Christians about Christianity I feel it completely unnecessary to randomly put it out there that the Koran is false and that there is no Allah.

Is posting that prayer "evil"? It's your Bible that seems to say so, considering your intent of posting it. Idk, only God is the judge in the end right ;). But scripture can say whatever it wants about who the dad is, what the unforgivable sin is, etc, but you have to believe it has authority in the first place canative. If I told you the unforgivable sin in my religion was to deny the tasty goodness of homemade ice cream and that you would freeze for eternity if you denied it, you wouldn't give a damn what it says because you see no authority in it. So why would you threaten us all with hell for disbelieving(a tactic better suited for people thinking of leaving the religion) if it's blatantly clear we don't believe in the authority of the thing you're quoting anyways?

Friendo
Forcing Christian Faith down anyones throats???
Matthew 7:21-23
Not evryone who says to Me Lord, Lord will enter the Kingdom of heaven; but he who does the will of my Fther who is in heaven (not Joseph) Many will say to me did we not prophecy in your name and in you name cast out demons and in your name perform many miracles?
And then I will declare to them, I never knew you Depart from Me, yoou who practice lawlessness.

These were the words of Jesus who actually admitted NOT EVERYONE WILL BELIEVE>..
If God was going to force faith down oour throats He would not have created us with the right to chose...

canative62,

Why did you skip Matthew 19 like I said above?

“If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven" Matthew 19:21

Matthew 19:22
but when the young man heard this he went away grieved for he was one who owned much property.

Friendo
Stand firm and know for sure these kind of things are bound top come about as the Bible foretold.
Having read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation 12 timee BUT not just read but STUDIED as directed by the Bible Since all scripture is inspired by God then it stands to reason that to understand it you must read it after praying for inspiration which is why each of the 12 times I learned much that was new.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ.
Be encouraged that God stands with His own and Our days are ahead shortly...

I guess using the logic of CN he must not be an American since he seems to not accept the "freedom of religion as stated in the Constitution.
If you deny any of it you must be denying it all...

Its all about the hypocrisy, whether its the desire for religious authority, or political authority, its all about the hypocrisy.

The Anti-Christ is to speak of religious authority as well as to bring power and wealth to his followers. Sounds like canative is a follower, promoting a party that speaks to authoritative power and wealth using religion as their authority. Look to the actions of requiring that in order to participate in our system one needs to carry the mark, in this case a voter ID.

Canative is the one who rejects the masses working together to feed and clothe the poor, and rather instead give the wealth to the powerful few. You don't think the followers of the Anti-Christ will be thinking they are doing evil, they will believe that they are doing the work of their father, its just that they don't recognize that their father is not who they think he is.

Magic underwear anyone?

The dark side is strong in this one....

Let the force be with you!

The Greatest Hypocrit is the man who wants to bring the off shore companies BACK B. O.
no out sourcing jobs but...INSOURCING
OOOH yes then we will tax you in to bankruptcy...so we can give the companies money to the bottom 50% so they will vote for the Democratic Party everytime

Sov
YOU are in fact full of lies when you TRY to lable me as "Canative is the one who rejects the masses working together to feed and clothe the poor, and rather instead give the wealth to the powerful few".
FIND a quote where I said not to deal with the poor in fact I beieve I pointed out how the churches including the one I go to help feed the poor...... THERE is in fact a difference between denying help and cutting fraud and abuse...
PLUS many believe job creators are in fact the rich and JOBS NEED TO BE CREATED NOT BY GOVERNMENT BUT THE PRIVATE SECTOR.
Why not speak the truth but it might not suit your cause ...you have to promote HATE while you claim you want people to PARTICIPATE... YOU are the hypocrit

Am I an American? Yes. Do I believe in freedom of religion? Yes(I don't know where you got the idea I was against it). Am I for the Constitution? No I'm not, I have stated that numerous times here. That doesn't mean I don't believe in anything written in the constitution though.

And canative you really make me laugh, you should join the Obama campaign. Obama is the guy that wants to bring companies back to America and then help the majority of you out with money raised from that! Here's the funny thing, the job growth we have seen under Obama has almost exclusively been in the private sector while many public sector workers are getting laid off under Obama. Companies are posting record profits under Obama, all of this stuff, it's ridiculous that you sit here and describe Obama as anti-business, it really is.

The POINT was IF Obama really wants the offshore businesses back WHY is he insisting on higher taxes from the Clinto era when thats what drove them away in the first place???
Does he need tax money that bad??? YES
He has to keep his voter base of the poor in money, tax payer money

lets go back to the taxes of the Clinton years...

For American workers, Clinton’s “jobless recovery” was followed by the “joyless recovery” the following two years, as unemployment declined agonizingly slowly, at the same time wages stagnated, and health and pension benefits were severely cut back or disappeared altogether. Profits and CEO pay exploded to obscene levels, however. The compensation (pay, benefits, and stock options) of America’s CEOs during the 1990s went from 85 times what the average blue-collar worker received to more than 475 times what blue-collar workers received in 1999. Jack Welch, the CEO of General Electric and golfing buddy of Bill Clinton, was paid in 1997 more than 1,400 times the average wage earned by the declining number of blue-collar GE employees in the United States. The richest 1 percent of the people went from controlling 35.7 percent of the country’s wealth in 1989 to over 40.1 percent in 1997. Fortune 500 corporations were earning record profits. The notorious Caterpillar corporation saw its profits soar by 155 percent from 1993 to 1997. UPS, the largest transportation company in the U.S., which pioneered part-time work in the 1980s resulting in two-thirds of its workforce becoming part-time under Clinton, had records profits of $1 billion in 1996.

While the rich were getting obscenely richer under Clinton, he led an attack on some of the most vulnerable and vilified people in our society—welfare recipients. In 1996, he ended “welfare as we know it.” During the next several years, the welfare caseload was cut in half and with most joining the ranks of the working poor, while millions of other poor people were hidden away in America’s exploding prison population. According to a report by the Children’s Defense Fund, the number of children living in poverty increased in the year after Clinton ended welfare by 426,000

We do need money that bad! If you haven't noticed we're trillions of dollars in debt and all you want to do is cut cut cut! Like really you do know you need money to pay off debts and if you keep cutting taxes it doesn't help at all. What do you guys want? Cut all spending on welfare, education, basically everything but security, whilst cutting taxes? That's how you throw more people into poverty whilst not even being able to pay off the debts we owe. It won't help anything your plan. But no, they're greedy rich bastards, and they wonder why people hate them! Maybe because instead of paying a living wage to somebody they'd rather outsource the jobs to some kid making 30 cents an hour in virtual slavery.

But I love how helping poor people is just trying to keep your voter base happy. What does that say about you? Just trying to help the rich is just trying to keep your voter base happy. Like Obama is putting people into poverty and then trying to give them welfare so they will vote for him. Because you know how people love being thrown into poverty and then having to swallow their pride and take assistance from the government.

The Effect of Taxes on Goods & Services

By Eric Novinson, eHow Contributor

Taxes have several effects on goods and services. A tax raises the cost of a good or service, which is paid either by the seller or the buyer. Taxes also affect decisions a company makes about selling a good or service, as well as whether the buyer will make a purchase.

Gee bring those companies back from off shore THEY WILL DO A BOOMING BUSINESS
with the higher cost of labor, higher taxes and less sales due to higher prices....
Pretty good sales pitch Obama

BUT remember currently under the Bush tax cut businesses are doing fine!!!!

your words from above...
"if you keep cutting taxes it doesn't help at all".
also your words from above
"the job growth we have seen under Obama has almost exclusively been in the private sector while many public sector workers are getting laid off under Obama. Companies are posting record profits under Obama",
You do realize they are currently under the Bush tax cuts??
BUT raise the taxes and send more companies off shore like Clinton did...

Yes in fact a Entitlement lifestyle doies in fact affect how a large segment of the population vote..... DO YOU HONESTLY think that removing any incentive for getting ahead REALLY HELPS POOR PEOPLE???
As noted the war on poverty is a complete failure as there is no EXIT STRATEGY... WHY?? FACT! the poor just keep on voting for those handouts..
.What happens when the money runs out as it is in many countries and states????
Yeah just keep them poor and they will be happy as long as Uncle Sam feeds THEM????

just a reminder
your words from above
"the job growth we have seen under Obama has almost exclusively been in the private sector while many public sector workers are getting laid off under Obama. Companies are posting record profits under Obama",
You do realize they are currently under the Bush tax cuts??

IF Obama had been able to beat the GOP there would be NO Bush tax cuts for the businesses you mentioned above that are doing fine...

Obama And The Bush Tax Cuts: Once Again, With Feeling

by Elias Isquith on July 10, 2012

Even before he was inaugurated, the so-called Bush Tax Cuts (BTCs) of 2001 and 2003 loomed over the Obama Presidency. On the campaign trail, Obama promised to extend the cuts for those making under $250,000 while letting the rest expire as scheduled before 2011. During the final days of 2010, however, the President found keeping this promise would cost more than it was worth and acquiesced to Republican demands that either all or none of the cuts were extended. He signed a bill carrying over all the cuts until 2013. The calculation made was that the sickly economy of late-2010 could not withstand raising taxes on 98 percent of the public, and that a promise deferred is not broken. So he extended the cuts for a year further still.

Sounds like it was actually the GOP, NOT Obama thats helpping the economy...

And notice how I was talking about the national debt... I've said over and over that the tax policy doesn't have as much of an effect as people make it out to numerous times when it comes to the decision of production and investment.

Then you blame Clinton's tax plan on outsourcing? Yeah let's ignore much more important things like NAFTA, which just further chipped away at things like our clothes manufacturing industry. Those workers fought for safe working conditions and good pay only to have the job go right over the border to low paid Mexicans receiving a fraction of what we earned and did not have the safe environment we had fought for. Also ignore the technological innovations which have put more people out of work than the outsourcing of jobs. But no, blame it all on a small increase in taxes! Reagan raised more taxes when compared to GDP then Clinton ever did. And I'd like to point out that the job growth has also been under Obama's tax cuts(don't forget again that he has lowered taxes).

And then you come in the most convoluted thinking I've ever seen. Have you ever been in poverty? Living in poverty is incentive enough to get out of poverty! Taking welfare isn't a fun thing you know. Neither is living in poverty. There is no exit strategy because it's one of those wars that can't be won within the framework it was being fought in(and because it is hardly paid attention too, it's just seen as regular for millions of people being in poverty and millions more almost living in poverty).

FYI
exports as mentioned below actually mean American goods, American good , American jobs and American incomes.
BUT yeah lets blame NAFTA

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)

As of January 1, 2008, all tariffs and quotas were eliminated on U.S. exports to Mexico and Canada under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). NAFTA created the world’s largest free trade area, which links 454 million people producing over $17.2 trillion worth of goods and services in 2010. The dismantling of trade barriers and the opening of markets has led to economic growth and rising prosperity in all three countries.

Total merchandise trade among the United States, Canada, and Mexico reached $944.6 billion in 2010, an increase of 218% since 1993. Canada and Mexico are our first and third largest merchandise trading partners, accounting for 32.3 percent of U.S. exports to the world in 2010.

The NAFTA provides coverage to services with the exception of aviation transport, maritime, and basic telecommunications. The agreement also provides intellectual property rights protection in a variety of areas including patent, trademark, and copyrighted material. The government procurement provisions of the NAFTA apply not only to goods but to contracts for services and construction at the federal level. Additionally, U.S. investors are guaranteed equal treatment to domestic investors in Mexico and Canada. Overall investment from the United States to Canada and Mexico reached $628 billion in 2009, growing 75 percent since 2003.

By Sector

U.S. exports to its NAFTA partners totaled $411.5 billion in 2010 and increase of 23 percent over 2009. Principal U.S. exports to Mexico and Canada in 2010 included electrical machinery, machinery, vehicles, mineral fuel/oil, and plastics

gee don't blame Clinton blame the technological innovations...

The Clinton push on technology - President Bill Clinton's technology proposals - Cover Story

by John S. DeMott
.
"When I walked into the Oval Office, I had Jimmy Carter's phone operating with Lyndon Johnson's switchboard," President Clinton recalls of his first day in the White House.

That comment to a meeting of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce was the president's way of spotlighting his awareness of the technology shortfall the nation faces not only in the chief executive's office but also in many other critical areas of American life.

To get the nation moving toward the 21st century technology needed to undergird the economy, he has announced a plan calling for spending $17 billion on technology during the next four years. It is geared to the theme that "investing in technology is investing in America's future."

The proposal was actually made jointly by Clinton and Vice President Gore. As a senator, Gore had been introducing technology-related legislation since 1979.

In describing the 1993 model, Clinton and Gore make frequent mention of entrepreneurship, innovation, and small business as beneficiaries and/or providers of the high technology they envision.

The plan, Technology for America's Economic Growth, is viewed by its sponsors as a vehicle for "creating incentives for long-term investments in small business."

Specifically, Clinton wants legislation to encourage "high-risk, long-term venture-capital investments in start-ups and other small enterprises" that can contribute to the technological modernization of this country.

The proposal has run into criticism, however, from critics who say that it's not clear how and when those enterprises would benefit. And, the skeptics add, the plan is aimed at the small firms that will come into existence over the next few decades rather than at companies in existence--and in many cases struggling-today.

The president and vice president nevertheless express conviction that their plan "unleashes the creative energies of innovators by creating a market that rewards invention and enterprise."

By "ensuring the coordinated management of technology all across the government," the plan reads, America's industrial competitivenesS will be strengthened, and a business environment will be created "where technical innovation can flourish and where investment is attracted to new ideas."

The skeptics, including many ,business people, also question the plan's emphasis on government and government-business cooperation, rather than major reliance on the private sector, to further U.S. technology.

Again you ignore what I said canative. I said it further chipped away at jobs in clothes manufacturing plants. That's an undeniable fact here. Where's you might blame those job losses on taxes we know the real reason. A lot of Mexicans got their jobs lost too, like how we flooded their market with cheap subsidized corn and other products which put a lot of their farmers out of business(who then came here surprise surprise). But you blame it on taxes.

I don't even know what point you're trying to make about the article concerning Clinton and technology. Technological innovations are part and parcel of capitalism, and a lot of the innovations put people out of jobs whether it's under a conservative or liberal. This is a no brainer or do you think the automation doesn't cut laborers out of the equation?

Canative do you really think American workers should be competitive with workers making 30 cents a day? I want to know how you think we could do this. Please tell us.

I think I might laugh for about an hour if Mr. anti-tax's answer is tariffs.

No, his answer will probably be something out of his bible. You know, something based on reality. :-)

Clinton along with Reagan, Bush and Bush, and the the Congresses that we had during those times are all responsible for where we are today. If taxes are too high, its because of their actions, if the debt is too high, it is because of their collective actions, if spending has been out of control, and jobs and manufacturing have left the country, they and no one else is to blame - Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and all of the Congressmen, both Conservative and Democratic who voted on these failed policies as well as those who kicked the can down the road as opposed to fixing things are responsible.

I have found that all of this looking back has shown an inability of the two parties to do anything correctly. Increases in policy spending by this president is the lowest of any president in 60 years at around 1.6%, so any way you slice it, spending policies by all past presidents of which there were more republicans that Dems was too high. The wing nuts on the right cry that taxes are too high, yet tax revenue under this president are its lowest in 30 years.

If repeating the something over and over expecting different results is a sign of insanity, then why keep electing the same two parties over and over expecting different results? 59% of the population want a government that is fiscally responsible, but socially liberal. Which party has shown those dendencies? The Conservatives have spent like drunken sailors, and are all about regulating personal liberties, so the don't fall within that 59%. The Democrats are just as guilty when it comes to massive government spending in the form of the obscene military spending.

As I said before, we don't want native to go away, since he presents the best reasons to not vote for either party, but to look to a candadate who as a two term governor has a record of being fiscally conservative, while being socially liberal. A record of being able to work with both democrats and republicans and to bring about the changes that were needed by his state. He also brings with him a tax plan, one that I have been in favor of for over 20 years, called the Fair Tax. If the electorate has a "live and let live" along with a "stay out of my business" desire for this country, you aren't going to get that by repeating the same actions from the past 30 years by voting for either of the two parties. Gary Johnson is the only candidate that represents the independent attitudes of live and let live, stay out of my business, fiscally responsible, socially liberal beliefs of a majority of Americans. Ron Paul is as much of an extreme as the wing nuts on the fringe that we see here promoting the ideals of Consevatives. Gary Johnson's moderate Libertarian record speaks for itself as a success story. Hold his record as governor up agaist that of Romney, and you will be comparing success to just "more of the same".

Keep up your cutting and pasting there native, you keep making the Libertarian candidate look better all of the time.

Newsmax "Support for Johnson take vote$ from Romney"
Wasn't that the idea all along??? support Johnson and re-elect Obama...

BUT Sov$ not a Dem or a liberal !!!@
just an Obama lover...

Hey,Sov did you know, Johnson says he wants to repeal Obama care...???

However, the overriding objection to voting for a third candidate, however chosen and whoever it may be, is that such a choice tilts the election in favor of the candidate you most dislike. Tea Party insurgents who vote for Paul, because he represents their libertarian views, steal votes from Romney and allow Obama to slip by. A progressive impatient with Obama’s centrism who opts for Sanders helps Romney win. As Perot made Clinton president and as Nader helped George W. Sometimes it’s better to love the one you’re with.

Does America really want a third-party candidate?
By Nicholas Wapshott April 24, 2012
"It is a commonly heard beef. In November we face a poor choice between a president who has disappointed his base and a challenger for whom there is no enthusiasm even from his core supporters. These are the conditions in which a third-party candidate might prosper. But so far no name has emerged. There is no Ross Perot drawling, “If voters don’t have a stomach for me, they can get one of those blow-dried guys”; no John B. Anderson saying you can only balance the budget with mirrors.

That there is little enthusiasm for Obama or Romney is evident. The New York Times described the voters’ dilemma as “like trying to decide between liver and brussels sprouts – a selection they would rather not have to make.” This antipathy toward the two champions has been growing over the years. As party discipline in the House has increased, with fewer free spirits willing to risk the opprobrium of their party’s leadership by voting their own way, so the electorate appears to have become less partisan.

Pollsters report an increase in the number who shun party labels and define themselves as “independents.” Between 2004 and 2009, Pew reports, independents, at 36 percent, became the largest voting bloc in the country, with 35 percent Democrats and just 23 percent Republicans. This does not necessarily mean, however, that voters are undecided. It may be that, with politics becoming increasingly vituperative and partisan, voters are reluctant to associate themselves with either side."

In this article Gary Johnson was not even mentioned..

Larry
Just so I don't disappoint you ... here are some terrifying quotes from the "Evil"(based on your posts) Bible that you reject.

God is love

Love your neighbor as your self (that would be really hard for you if your neighbor was a Conservative)

For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son

The Lord is my rock and my redeemer

The Lord is my shepherd I shall not want

All things work together for good to those who love the Lord

The Lord God said
"I know the plans I have for you befor you were formed in the womb, plans to prosper you and not to harm you.."

Nice touch. Cleverly endorsing the spoiler vote known as Gary Johnson. Nobody will notice that political duplicity...will they? Keep trying to sneak it by us.

It's like suggesting that Hillary Clinton running as an Independent would not take votes from Obozo. If you believe that, then I have a bridge to sell you.

Small minds trapped in a "lesser of the two evils" mentality. Nothing will improve until people are willing to vote for what they believe in and not what the corporate media tells them. America used to be the Land of the Free, home of the brave, until you Conservatives came along, and now you want everyone to be in fear and to not be brave enough to move away from what has failed us over and over again. Voting for anyone is taking a chance, but I would at rather vote my principles than to vote for someone who has only lied to me over and over again. If it isn't working, then why keep trying it, and your way isn't working.

Any party is a group think, and I don't subscribe to a party line, but Libertarianism as a principle has its roots in the founders as well as those who settled the West. The "live and let live" and "stay out of our business" ways of thinking are big in various western states because that is the type of people they are.

If you are worried that this candidate will be a spoiler taking votes from your party, you should be worried. Gary Johnson has a record of success as a governor and a leader, and for meaning what he says, something that is lost on both the large parties, but especially yours. The Conservative candidate had a poor record as a one term governor who left the people of his state more debt ridden that when he came in. The Conservative movement is fracturing and fragmenting. It doesn't do what it claims it is for, and people are starting to feel like a fool arguing in favor of a party that vote contrary to the average persons well being. If people can have someone stand up for their civil rights without having to spend tons of money on a bureaucracy then the Democrats have something to worry about as well.

I have already laid out an alternative to Obamacare, which is just a right wing marketing phrase, and not a program by the way. The ACA is far better than anything that a Conservative has provided, but far from being what we need, so to try and draw me out to defend the program is weak at best. Maybe you should tell us how Romneycare would be a better alternative to the ACA. I still haven't seen your suggestions as to how to address the need for healthcare reform, and to be honest, my expectations of you being able to form a suggestion, especially on your own are minimal at best. From all of your posts I can see a limited capacity to solve problems on your part, so I really don't expect anything.

It must be hard being your form of Conservative and Christian, always on the defensive for not really meaning what you say only looking to be the authority without any of the responsibility. I think this is the part now where you post a whole bunch of cut and paste of other peoples opinions, so have at it.

Try and sell us on why we should vote for the Conservatives using facts and successes, without mentioning another party. You know the old saying, you can't make yourself look better by making someone else look bad, now try and live up to that saying. We know you can't.

"Evil"(based on your posts) Bible"
Native, Can you show me where I have said the Bible is evil?
Not being based in reality is not "evil", just dumb...

Friendo
Do you wonder why with the talk of a third party Sov is about Gary Johnson who would take votes from Romney AND NOT about Ron Paul who would likely take votes from Obama??? All the while having a better chance of actually winning..

When all the votes are in. How is Gary Johnson going to move us in a better direction while he is looking for a job. It really won't matter what his agenda or eexperience is if he loses.
I guess it will make some feel better about themselves that they threw their vote after their ideaLS OR that they helpped Obama win.
according to Mr. Wapshott,
"But so far no name has emerged. There is no Ross Perot drawling, “If voters don’t have a stomach for me, they can get one of those blow-dried guys”; no John B. Anderson saying you can only balance the budget with mirrors."

This was published in April 2012 Guess Mr. Johnson is not a serious contender just a spoiler, which is the whole idea.
Kind of makes you think the Dems will stoop to anything when they know the people do not like the direction they are taking this country.

Yes, voting Libertarian, the insane uncle of US political party affiliations, is sure to cure what ails us. Oh deary dear, those dag nab conservatives are the root of all evil I tell ya! Laying the political snake oil sales pitch on a little thick today, arent we? Scare tactic and Snake Oil won't help Obozo win this time for he has screwed up far worse than any conservative ever has. We new he was a failure prior to the 2008 election. He has used his past four years in office to confirm it. You could call it a public service so that this time there there is no doubt.

canative62,

Sov is very clever with his endorsement of a spoiler. Yes you are right Sov could have easily supported Ron Paul but that endorsement would only serve to undermine Sov's actual efforts to gain an Obama reelection. Sov doesn't think too many will notice his political misdirection. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Anyway you slice it, an endorsement for Gary Johnson is a calulated political distraction with results intended to favor Obama. Sov does his best work as an Obama carnie. Don't be fooled!

So native you don't think you will be throwing your vote away with Romney? What are his winning qualities and principles that Americans will vote for?

So it has nothing to do with proper governance, past record, or shared principles, it's only about winning for you? That is what I have been stating about you and the Conservatives, you are all about winning elections and not about improving the country. All that the Conservatives are good at are lying, cheating,stacking the deck and propaganda, now those are qualities worth voting for. See, this is why we like keeping you around, you are the best example of what is wrong with the right.

It has everything to do with governence, past record and shared principales... ALL BAD from Obama
It is time to stop him.

It is NOT improving the country to allow Obama a second term.
Since most see this administration taking us in the wrong direction YES it is in fact improving the country to get Romney elected...
It does no good to fly the flag hoping for a third party that won't win

So Native, where did I say the Bible was "evil"?

Is Ron Paul even running? There were talks of him running as the libertarian parties candidate but then I'm pretty sure that he said he wouldn't run if he didn't get the GOP nomination...

But either way why would Sov lie about his support for Johnson? Not everyone is as low as you two, all I see is projection here.

Hey canative please give us some quotes about God loving us so much that he told us to kill our kids if they disobey their parents and told the Israelites to go slaughter every man woman and child multiple times in their conquest for Palestine.

"ALL BAD from Obama " - this is the perception that you and the wing nuts try and present through lies and innuendo, but never with fact.

The best you can do is cut and paste opinions from other wing nuts. I look at the names of those you cut and paste aNd used by you as some sort of proof of what you claim, and I ask myself who in the heck are these people, and why should I care what they think or say?

FringeNoise just ran a report where they edited a speech that Obama made where they took sentences out of context and implied that he was making a completely different statement. This is how weak you and yours is. You call Obama bad, but you promote disingenuous self fabricated so called evidence through creative editing, and you hope that the people are ignorant enough to be manipulated into believing your crap. You think so lowly of the average person to believe they will see the Consevative propaganda as fact. I think higher of my fellow citizen why don't you? If you are making stuff up to get people to believe in your cause, what else are you making up? How about that religion you follow, how much of that is getting made up as you go along? This is called a lack of credibility on your part.

You have nothing so you have to make up the "bad". The one thing I have noticed about you Conservatives though, the "bad" that you all present as happening from this president is based on actual "bad" things that the Conservatives have done. It's like you guys are always trying to point out that Obama is as bad as you guys are, and that we should be upset by this.

Talk about keeping the bar low.

By the way native, you sidestepped this question when you posted your reply,, "What are his winning qualities and principles that Americans will vote for?"

So what are the policies that Romney is presenting that will improve the nation? What are his principles, and do you have any examples of them that you can point to? What examples do you have that he would lead us in the correct (I almost said right direction which could be taken in a different context) direction?

I am sure this is a hard task for you which is why you will avoid it and instead present some anti-Obama propaganda as the reason to vote for Romney. Come on and admit it, you strive only to be the lesser of the two evils, because anything else is hard, and would require that one would actually need to mean what they say.

"It does no good to fly the flag hoping for a third party that won't win" - Gee, if all Americans had this "get in line and shut up" way of thinking, Apple would have never succeeded in the way that they have, or Chrysler would not be seeing 20% sales increases YOY, or Toyota and Honda, or Hyundai for that matter would not be in the positions that they are.

If people didn't follow Martin Luther, you all would still be Catholic. If the American citizens didn't try a different party with a candidate that was presenting a different view point, they would have been no Abe Lincoln, and African Americans could still be slaves.

Just think, if the colonists had your view, they would not have looked to an alternative to the the powers that be of the time. I can see you out in the public square telling your fellow colonists,"Don't follow these rebels, there is no hope, you need to stick with the choice of the Monarchy! The King, he's rich, he knows what he is doing!!!!"

Have you noticed that the two monopoly Parties have lost all substance and are ran by PR guys? (Reince Priebus - take out the vowels and you get RNC PR BS - LOL!!!!!)

"And how are monopolies lost? Think about it. Some very good product people invent some very good products, and the company achieves a monopoly. But after that, the product people aren't the ones that drive the company forward anymore. It's the marketing guys or the ones who expand the business into Latin America or whatever. Because what's the point of focusing on making the product even better when the only company you can take business from is yourself? So a different group of people start to move up. And who usually ends up running the show? The sales guy. John Akers at IBM is the consummate example. Then one day, the monopoly expires for whatever reason. But by then the best product people have left, or they're no longer listened to. And so the company goes through this tumultuous time, and it either survives or it doesn't. Look at Microsoft — who's running Microsoft? (interviewer: Steve Ballmer.) Right, the sales guy. Case closed. And that's what happened at Apple, as well." - Steve Jobs

SO..
this is the perception that you and the wing nuts try and present through lies and innuendo, but never with fact.

The best you can do is cut and paste opinions from other wing nuts. I look at the names of those you cut and paste aNd used by you as some sort of proof of what you claim, and I ask myself who in the heck are these people, and why should I care what they think or say?

In plain leftwing english"these people are from the right, nothing they could say could be the truth because they oppose the leftwing agenda"!!! real logical and this is the one who says he wants people to participate in politics.

"So what are the policies that Romney is presenting that will improve the nation? What are his principles, and do you have any examples of them that you can point to? What examples do you have that he would lead us in the correct (I almost said right direction which could be taken in a different context) direction?"

The only
source to respond to this question would be from the "right" as seen from above unacceptable...

"Come on and admit it, you strive only to be the lesser of the two evils, because anything else is hard, and would require that one would actually need to mean what they say."

You mean like the Obama propaganda that has been nothing but lies...Transparency??? no mopre business as usual??? the GOP made me do it???
Finally susing your logic
"The best you can do is cut and paste opinions from other wing nuts. I look at the names of those you cut and paste aNd used by you as some sort of proof of what you claim, and I ask myself who in the heck are these people, and why should I care what they think or say?"
Since many of my copy and paste is in fact from huffingtonpost.com, ABC, NBC, CNN, the socialists web site.
"If you are making stuff up to get people to believe in your cause, what else are you making up? How about that religion you follow, how much of that is getting made up as you go along? This is called a lack of credibility on your part".
BY your own words you are in fact losing credibility in all you say.. You do a steady job for the left but youy on in a losing battle and the lies and smoke and mirrors with Saul Alinsky's rules won't help you.
You only accept what agrees with you and nothing else is acceptable ...
check the dictionary for the definition of bigot...
from websters
"Bigot: one fanatically devoted to ones owngrooup, religion, race,or POLITICS and INTOLERANT of those who differ.."

By the way you are missing one MAJOR detail in your third party push.... in order to suceede you must get the majority of votes... YOU DON'T HAVE THEM
Which would be a strong indication you are in fact promoting a drain on votes for Romney in order for Obama to win...

Here is one solution for you Sov...
How about a third party with Al Gore and with Hillary Clinton as VP...
That would be a good choice...

Good to cut into Obama's vote count.

"You mean like the Obama propaganda that has been nothing but lies" - See what I mean, you can't bring up anything positive about Conservatives, so you cast aspersions on the other party. You are so predictable! Still trying to make the Conservatives look better by trying to make the Democrats look bad. Still looking to be the lesser of the two evils. Lesser evil is still evil. I'm not wiling to sell my soul to the devil just to win as you are.

"Saul Alinsky's rules won't help you." - You have to be feeling this daily aren't you? Ol Saul is letting you down constantly, maybe you should read the talking points some more. The problem you have is one does not need Saul's advice if one is dealing in facts, and not lies and innuendo. Its not a game of trying to manipulate my fellow citizens like it is for you.

"in order to succeed [sic] you must get the majority of votes... YOU DON'T HAVE THEM" - You see success differently than I do, I know it comes in inches, so if people wake up to a different way of thinking, the ball moves forward an inch. I do not strive to be the lesser of the two evils as you do.

So, again, no side stepping here - What are his winning qualities and principles that Romney brings that Americans will vote for?

So what are the policies that Romney is presenting that will improve the nation? What are his principles, and do you have any examples of them that you can point to? What examples do you have that he would lead us in the correct (I almost said right direction which could be taken in a different context) direction?

I am thinking that you have no clue.

"When you believe in America you don't apologize for America

when you believe in America you don't punish the American people for their success

When you believe in America you don't saddle job creators with crushing regulations

When you believe in America you don't let extremeists chip away at our traditional values

When you believe in America you fight to restore the principles of freedom and opportunity that made America the greatest nation on earth.

Instead of expanding the government, I will shrink it.

Instead of raising taxes I will cut them

Instead of adding regulations I will scale them back

My agenda takes America in the right direction by preserving freedom, encouraging risk taking and innovatoion, fostering competition and promoting opportunity..."

Mitt Romney

By the way !! Do you really believe supporting a third party that helps Obama win would really be a small step in that party's direction when you and others on the left are in FACT doing everything they can to shut up the opposition???? Obama's second term would end your dreams in a month...

So, again, no side stepping here - What are his winning qualities and principles that Romney brings that Americans will vote for?

So what are the policies that Romney is presenting that will improve the nation? What are his principles, and do you have any examples of them that you can point to? What examples do you have that he would lead us in the correct (I almost said right direction which could be taken in a different context) direction?

I am thinking that you have no clue.

You are giving me a political commercial, show me policies and that he has invoked as governor and or policies that he is presenting as president.

You offered me rhetoric that is not reflective of his history as governor.

Apparently Native can't prove his claim that I called his bible "Evil". Doesn't help your credibility much there Native...

"Do you really believe supporting a third party that helps Obama win would really be a small step in that party's direction when you and others on the left are in FACT doing everything they can to shut up the opposition???? " - You have fallen into a paradigm that you can't comprehend haven't you? I don't support a third party, I support a candidate who is not running under the two monopoly parties and has a record of success and to sticking to his principles.

"you and others on the left" - you are so extreme and radical that your beloved St Ronnie is on the left with me. You and yours are so far away from the mainstrea*m, and from reality that you don't know what is real and what is propaganda.

"Do you really believe supporting a third party that helps Obama win" - you seem pretty sure of this, why such angst? Can't your party win on their past achievements without the need of those who desire a fiscally responsible - socially liberal, "live and let live", "stay out of our business" type of voter? You seem to be admitting that the Conservatives miss the mark when it comes to this type of leadership. I guess when all you have is the desire to be the lesser than the two evils propaganda party, you would be fearful if the people begin to see you for what you really are, empty suits.

"to shut up the opposition???? " - “Don't find fault, find a remedy; anybody can complain”
― Henry Ford

Try bring forth solutions, it only take a weak mind to oppose everything. Americans are tired of the constant whining from the "opposition."

Like I said, I am not trying to shut you up, just counter the perception that you are trying to present. Why shut you up, it makes things easier for me to show that there is more intelligent ways then the two that you present.

Just as my wife said you would not accept the post of Romney's principles'''

from websters
"Bigot: one fanatically devoted to ones own group, religion, race,or POLITICS and INTOLERANT of those who differ.."

"On the positive side, Romney would make low cost energy available by immediately building the Keystone pipeline and opening government lands for drilling. He would open up trade with Latin America by creating a "Reagan Economic Zone" promoting free trade between the northern and southern hemispheres.

The presidential candidate also said he would lower corporate and individual tax rates and he would balance the federal budget."

Mitt Romney will rebuild the foundations of the American economy on the principles of free enterprise, hard work, and innovation. His plan seeks to reduce taxes, spending, regulation, and government programs. It seeks to increase trade, energy production, human capital, and labor flexibility. It relinquishes power to the states instead of claiming to have the solution to every problem.

Any American living through this economic crisis will immediately recognize the severity of the break that Mitt Romney proposes from our current course. He is calling for a fundamental change in Washington’s view of how economic growth and prosperity are achieved, how jobs are created, and how government can support these endeavors. It is at once a deeply conservative return to policies that have served our nation well and a highly ambitious departure from the policies of our current leadership. In short, it is a plan to get America back to work.

Mitt's Plan

Reducing and stabilizing federal spending is essential, but breathing life into the present anemic recovery will also require fixing the nation’s tax code to focus on jobs and growth. To repair the nation’s tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government. The principle of fairness must be preserved in federal tax and spending policy.

Individual Taxes

America’s individual tax code applies relatively high marginal tax rates on a narrow tax base. Those high rates discourage work and entrepreneurship, as well as savings and investment. With 54 percent of private sector workers employed outside of corporations, individual rates also define the incentives for job-creating businesses. Lower marginal tax rates secure for all Americans the economic gains from tax reform.
•Make permanent, across-the-board 20 percent cut in marginal rates
•Maintain current tax rates on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate taxes for taxpayers with AGI below $200,000 on interest, dividends, and capital gains
•Eliminate the Death Tax
•Repeal the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Corporate Taxes

The U.S. economy’s 35 percent corporate tax rate is among the highest in the industrial world, reducing the ability of our nation’s businesses to compete in the global economy and to invest and create jobs at home. By limiting investment and growth, the high rate of corporate tax also hurts U.S. wages.
•Cut the corporate rate to 25 percent
•Strengthen and make permanent the R&D tax credit
•Switch to a territorial tax system
•Repeal the corporate Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT)

Mitt's Plan

Mitt Romney will treat regulatory costs like other costs: he will establish firm limits for them. A Romney administration will act swiftly to tear down the vast edifice of regulations the Obama administration has imposed on the economy. It will also seek to make structural changes to the federal bureaucracy that ensure economic growth remains front and center when regulatory decisions are made.

Eliminate Undue Economic Burdens

One of the greatest problems with the federal bureaucracy is that each incoming presidential administration leaves in place much of what its predecessor constructed. The result is layer upon layer of often unnecessary or inconsistent regulation. President Obama has compounded this problem with unprecedented federal power grabs over wide swaths of the economy. Obama-era laws and regulations must be rolled back, and pre-existing ones must be carefully scrutinized.
•Repeal Obamacare
•Repeal Dodd-Frank and replace with $treamlined, modern regulatory framework
•Amend Sarbanes-Oxley to relieve mid-size companies from onerous requirements
•Initiate review and elimination of all Obama-era regulations that unduly burden the economy

Reform Environmental Regulation

As president, Mitt Romney will eliminate the regulations promulgated in pursuit of the Obama administration’s costly and ineffective anti-carbon agenda. Romney will also press Congress to reform our environmental laws to ensure that they allow for a proper assessment of their costs.
•Ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process
•Provide multi-year lead times before companies must come into compliance with onerous new environmental regulations

Adopt Structural Reforms

An agency may be able to conceive of ten different regulations, each imposing costs of $10 billion while producing at least as much in social benefit. Moving forward might sound like a great idea to the typical regulator. But imposing those regulations, no matter what the social benefits, has a $imilar effect to raising taxes by $100 billion. Regulatory costs need to be treated like the very real costs they are.
•Impose a regulatory cap of zero dollars on all federal agencies
•Require congressional approval of all new “major” regulations
•Reform legal liability $ystem to prevent spurious litigation

Mitt's Plan

Mitt Romney believes that free trade is essential to restoring robust economic growth and creating jobs. We need to open new markets beyond our borders for American goods and services on terms that work for America.

Opening New Markets

Every president beginning with Ronald Reagan has recognized the power of open markets and pursued them on behalf of the United States. George W. Bush successfully negotiated eleven FTAs, encompassing sixteen countries. He also had the vision to commence negotiations with a number of allies around the Pacific Rim to expand significantly the Trans-Pacific Partnership. All told, these agreements have enabled people across the world to come together and build a better future. Economists estimate that the agreements have led to the creation of 5.4 million new American jobs and support a total of nearly 18 million jobs. Looking beyond just our FTA partners, our total exports support nearly 10 million American jobs. These are not just jobs; they’re good jobs, paying significantly above average, and more than one-third are in manufacturing.
•Reinstate the president’s Trade Promotion Authority
•Complete negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership
•Pursue new trade agreements with nations committed to free enterprise and open markets
•Create the Reagan Economic Zone

Confronting China

China presents a broad set of problems that cry out urgently for solutions. It is time to end the Obama administration’s acquiescence to the one-way arrangements the Chinese have come to enjoy. We need a fresh and fearless approach to that trade relationship. Our first priority must be to put on the table all unilateral actions within our power to ensure that the Chinese adhere to existing agreements. Anyone with business experience knows that you can succeed in a negotiation only if you are willing to walk away. If we want the Chinese to play by the rules, we must be willing to say “no more” to a relationship that too often benefits them and harms us.
•Increase CBP resources to prevent the illegal entry of goods into our market
•Increase USTR resources to pursue and support litigation against unfair trade practices
•Use unilateral and multilateral punitive measures to deter unfair Chinese practices
•Designate China a currency manipulator and impose countervailing duties
•Discontinue U.S. government procurement from China until China commits to GPA

Mitt's Plan

As president, Mitt Romney will make every effort to safeguard the environment, but he will be mindful at every step of also protecting the jobs of American workers. This will require putting conservative principles into action.

Significant Regulatory Reform

The first step will be a rational and $treamlined approach to regulation, which would facilitate rapid progress in the development of our domestic reserves of oil and natural gas and allow for further investment in nuclear power.
•Establish fixed timetables for all resource development approvals
•Create one-stop shop to $treamline permitting process for approval of common activities
•Implement fast-track procedures for companies with established safety records to conduct pre-approved activities in pre-approved areas
•Ensure that environmental laws properly account for cost in regulatory process
•Amend Clean Air Act to exclude carbon dioxide from its purview
•Expand NRC capabilities for approval of additional nuclear reactor designs
•$treamline NRC processes to ensure that licensing decisions for reactors on or adjacent to approved sites, using approved designs, are complete within two years

Increasing Production

The United States is blessed with a cornucopia of carbon-based energy resources. Developing them has been a pathway to prosperity for the nation in the past and offers $imilar promise for the future.
•Conduct comprehensive survey of America’s energy reserves
•Open America’s energy reserves for development
•Expand opportunities for U.S. resource developers to forge partnerships with neighboring countries
•Support construction of pipelines to bring Canadian oil to the United States
•Prevent overregulation of shale gas development and extraction

Research and Development

Government has a role to play in innovation in the energy industry. History shows that the United States has moved forward in astonishing ways thanks to national investment in basic research and advanced technology. However, we should not be in the business of steering inve$tment toward particular politically favored approaches. That is a recipe for both time and money wasted on projects that do not bring us dividends. The failure of windmills and solar plants to become economically viable or make a significant contribution to our energy supply is a prime example.
•Concentrate alternative energy funding on basic research
•Utilize long-term, apolitical funding mechani$ms like ARPA-E for basic research

This one will Really get the socialists mad..
Mitt's Plan

Mitt Romney, with his extensive experience in both business and government, has a keen understanding of labor relations. He recognizes, as he himself has written, that “[a]t their best, labor unions have always fought for the rights of workers, and generations of Americans have been better off for it.” But he also recognizes that the interests of union management can diverge from those of the very workers they purport to serve.

Free Enterprise

As president, Mitt Romney’s first step in improving labor policy will be to ensure that our labor laws create a stable and level playing field on which businesses can operate. As they hire, businesses should not have to worry that a politicized federal agency will rewrite the rules of the employment game without warning and without regard for the law.
•Appoint to the N*LRB experienced in*dividuals with respect for the rule of law
•Amend N*LRA to explicitly protect the right of business owners to allocate their capital as they see fit
•Reverse executive orders issued by President Obama that tilt the playing field toward organized labor

Free Choice

Mitt Romney believes in the right of workers to join a union or to not join a union. To exercise that right freely, workers must have access to all the relevant facts they need to make an informed decision. This means hearing from both the union about the poten*tial benefits and from management about poten*tial costs. This also means being able to act on that decision in the privacy of the ballot booth.

Mitt's Plan

After three years of President Obama, many now question whether we can ever return to fiscal sanity, let alone fiscal strength. A point of no return may well be approaching — a decade of huge deficits could drive our principal payments and interest rates beyond our reach while starving the economy of the capital it needs to grow.

Fortunately, the American economy’s tremendous capacity for growth gives the country one more chance to correct course. Mitt Romney has spent his career executing turnarounds in the private sector, the Olympics, and state government. He will bring to Washington the turnaround philosophy it so badly needs.

Set Honest Goals: Cap Spending At 20 Percent Of GDP

Any turnaround must begin with clear and realistic goals. Optimistic projections cannot wish a problem away, they can only make it worse. As president, Mitt’s goal will be to bring federal spending below 20 percent of GDP by the end of his first term:
•Reduced from 24.3 percent last year; in line with the historical trend between 18 and 20 percent
•Close to the tax revenue generated by the economy when healthy
•Requires spending cuts of approximately $500 billion per year in 2016 assuming robust economic recovery with 4% annual growth, and reversal of irresponsible Obama-era defense cuts

Take Immediate Action: Return Non-Security Discretionary Spending To Below 2008 Levels

Any turnaround must also stop the bleeding and reverse the most recent and dramatic damage:
•Send Congress a bill on Day One that cuts non-security discretionary spending by 5 percent across the board
•Pass the House Republican Budget proposal, rolling back President Obama’s government expansion by capping non-security discretionary spending below 2008 levels

Follow A Clear Roadmap: Build A Simpler, Smaller, Smarter Government

Most importantly, any turnaround must have a thoughtful, structured approach to achieving its goals. Mitt will attack the bloated budget from three angles:

BEFORE you complain about copy and paste...
Which you frequently do..
Remember you asked for it...

Sov
Now return the favor with
Gary Johnson's
agenda, plans and principles...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cut Spending

THIS RECESSION HAS FORCED FAMILIES AND BUSINESSES across America to make hard choices and limit their expenditures. We must now expect our elected officials to make the tough calls that will keep our government on a sustainable path moving forward. We must restrain spending across the board:

Revise the terms of entitlement programs such as Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, which threaten to bankrupt the nation's future.
Eliminate the costly and ineffective military interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan; limit defense spending to actions that truly protect the United States.
Stop spending on the fiscal stimulus, transportation, energy, housing, and all other special interests. The U.S. must restrain spending across the board.

"Mitt Romney will rebuild the foundations of the American economy on the principles of free enterprise, hard work, and innovation." - Ok, how?

"His plan seeks to reduce taxes, spending, regulation, and government programs." - is this what he did as Governor? Tax collection is at a 30 year low, things aren't looking up, so how will this help? Reduce spending, really, where, how? This is a very unConservative notion and unlike what his record shows as Governor. So how will he be changing his ways? What plan has he presented? Also, he has stated that he is in favor of SPENDING $100 billion more in military (government) spending. Seems to be a con*flict here.

"It seeks to increase trade, energy production, human capital, and labor flexibility" - so what does this mean, and how does he plan to do this? I believe human capital is a reference to slaves, are we going back to that again? How does he figure to get around a congress that has fought these issues.

"It relinquishes power to the states instead of claiming to have the solution to every problem." - Such as???? Lets take the ACA law, which was based on a state law.... that Romney implemented, the founders saw the states as incubators for new ideas that could be implemented on a national level. SO is he against what the founders believed, and against his own program? What powers is he specifically calling to relinquish to the states? How does he plan to relinquish these powers since the Senate represents the states in Congress, and the last I looked, they aren't into relinquishing any powers. So what is his plan to get this through, you do have the details, right?

"He is calling for a fundamental change in Washington’s view of how economic growth and prosperity are achieved" - these seem to be the same things that Obama has said, but has had nothing but resistance from a corrupt congress. How will Romney change the ways of a corrupt congress? Does he have a record of fighting corruption, or just working with it?

"To repair the nation’s tax code, marginal rates must be brought down to stimulate entrepreneurship, job creation, and investment, while still raising the revenue needed to fund a smaller, smarter, simpler government." - So what is his plan to do this beyond impressing you with his rhetoric? Now if you go to Gov. Gary Johnson's web page @ www.garyjohnson2012.com, he lays out his plan for doing away with income tax and implement what is called a Fair Tax, that would be completely different, and do away with the loop holes that allow corporations and the wealthy (Like Romney) avoid paying their fair share in taxes. One can simply go to www.fairtax.org to see a detailed synopsis of how this tax program would work. So where do I go to see a detailed version of Romney's?

"It is at once a deeply conservative return to policies that have served our nation well" - Can you elaborate a little more here, when was these policies in effect and when did they show any kind of positive results?

"On the positive side, Romney would make low cost energy available by immediately building the Keystone pipeline and opening government lands for drilling." - Ok, so now you need to explain this one to me. Where does it say that the oil that would be piped through the Keystone pipeline will lower energy costs? What assurances do we get that this oil does not become refined gasoline and then get exported out of the country? You do know that we export over a half a million gallons of refined gasoline a day as it is, so with more gasoline to export, what assurance is Romney giving that will keep this refined gasoline here and providing us with energy independence?

Also, I just saw this headline to an article that stated, "Mitt Romney Supports An End To Wind Tax Credit, Which Could ‘Mean The Loss Of Several Thousand Jobs’" http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012...

That doesn't sound like someone who is in favor of energy independence or creating jobs. How does he look to create energy independence, what exactly did he do as Governor?

"BEFORE you complain about copy and paste...
Which you frequently do..
Remember you asked for it..." - I noticed you couldn't put it in your own words.....

" limit defense spending to actions that truly protect the United States." as well as "Stop spending on the fiscal stimulus... all other special interests" - Sounds like a good idea, but it contradicts his earlier claims that he wants to spend $100 billion more on the military budget, which is already nearing 3/4 of a trillion dollars. The military contractors are a special interest, so what policy plan does he have, or were these just "etch-a-sketch" statements? You do have something to show to back this up right? He has a history of enacting these types of cost cutting policies as Governor, right?

your actual question!!!
You are giving me a political commercial, show me policies and that he has invoked as governor and or policies that he is presenting as president.

I responded with his principles that he is running on!!!! you didn't ask for my personal opinion....
TWIST IT SOV you are so good at it... WHY is it a problem I didn't put it in my own words????

Here is Gary Johnson on the issues..
Which you didn't respond to...

Don't require insurers to provide birth control. (May 2012)
No federal funding for stem cell research. (Jan 2012)
Women's right to choose until fetal viability. (Jun 2011)
Right to choose up until viability of the fetus. (May 2011)
Leave the decision up to the woman. (Jan 2001)

Stop incurring more debt; balanced budget by 2013. (Jul 2011)
Our debt is greatest threat to our national security. (Jul 2011)
Opposed TARP, stimulus & Fannie Mae bailout. (Jul 2011)
End the Fed; they've devalued the dollar by printing money. (May 2011)
On verge of financial collapse unless we balance budget. (May 2011)
Balance budget by cutting entitlements AND Defense. (Apr 2011)
Uphold commitments to states before other spending. (Sep 2001)

Gary Johnson on Civil Rights

Supports separation of religion and state. (Aug 2011)
Prostitution is safer when legal and regulated. (Jun 2011)
I support gay unions; government out of marriage business. (Apr 2011)
Support principles embodied in the Equal Rights Amendment. (Feb 2001)

Gary Johnson on Corporations

Started a one-man handyman business; grew it to 1,000 people. (Sep 2011)
Eliminate corporate income tax as real way to create jobs. (Jun 2011)
Lower the tax burden; eliminate corporate tax. (May 2011)

Gary Johnson on Crime

1994: Proponent of death penalty, but willing to debate it. (Jan 2012)
Death penalty as a public policy is flawed. (Jan 2012)
Don't risk putting innocent to death. (Aug 2011)
Half of crime is drug-related; legalizing drugs cuts crime. (Jan 2001)
Supports flexible federal block grants for crime programs. (Sep 2001)
Zero tolerance for violence against government employees. (Aug 2001)

Gary Johnson on Drugs

75% of border violence with Mexico is due to drugs. (Jun 2011)
Marijuana is safer than alcohol. (Jun 2011)
Legalize marijuana instead of 1.8 million arrests and $70B. (May 2011)
Harm-reduction: health issue rather than criminal issue. (May 2011)
Drug policy today parallels Prohibition in the 1920's. (May 2011)
War on Drugs is a miserable failure; $6M for treatment. (Apr 2001)
Drug use is up despite $30B spending on War on Drugs. (Jan 2001)
Prescriptions for heroin & methadone at local pharmacy. (Jan 2001)
Allow medical marijuana and needle exchanges. (Jan 2001)
More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War. (Aug 2000)
States should make drug policy, not feds. (Aug 2001)

from websters
"Bigot: one fanatically devoted to ones own group, religion, race,or POLITICS and INTOLERANT of those who differ.."

you wouldn't accept anyones views but your own liberal ones...
Note that Mr. Johnson does not stand for all you have said you do...
So why do you support him????
Much suspicion of foul play here....

"Take Immediate Action: Return Non-Security Discretionary Spending To Below 2008 Levels" - such as? and why stop at pre-2008, why not go back to when the economy was booming, like say, 1996 or 1998? What imminent threat exists that we need to keep growing government spending on Security and not reign that in to 1996 levels as well? Oh yeah, I forgot, WMD's!

So why does he leave out the largest sector of government spending? Would we as a country not benefit greater from cutting what consumes the largest segment of our government's spending? Where is the logic here? Is Romney afraid of something? Wont his magic underwear protect him from all danger that he may face as president? Maybe we all as Americans should have this magic underwear to protect us as well, and then we can cut down on the military spending! So, would that magic underwear be made in Burma like the uniforms that the Olympic team wore when he was running the 2002 Olympics (More outsourcing)? Shouldn't we be looking to elect a brave president to represent the "home of the brave"?

"•Pass the House Republican Budget proposal," - Here is another contradiction, this republican budget proposal adds $5 trillion to our debt. This isn't a good thing, why would Romney tell us he is against spending, and then want to add $5 trillion to the debt?

Looks like you have some explaining to do here, Lucy!

Don't require insurers to provide birth control. (May 2012) - Ok, we need to do away with the Healthcare insurance system as it is.

No federal funding for stem cell research. (Jan 2012) - Ok, if we can't benefit from it, why spend the money to benefit the wealthy who can afford it.

Women's right to choose until fetal viability. (Jun 2011) - Women's right to choose..... sounds like liberty to me...

Right to choose up until viability of the fetus. (May 2011) There's that Right to choose thing again... I am missing your point, I guess you hate Liberties...

Leave the decision up to the woman. (Jan 2001) - That bastard, leave the decision up to the women??? That is man's work! Are you trying to make a point here? Have you missed my calls for more liberties? Do you know what liberties are? Did you notice that the word Libertarian contains the word Liberty?

Gary Johnson on Civil Rights

Supports separation of religion and state. (Aug 2011) - OK, I'm good with that, its a Constitutional thing.

Prostitution is safer when legal and regulated. (Jun 2011) - You disagree? Regulations are a good thing when it protects small businesses. Just look to Nevada and Amsterdam

I support gay unions; government out of marriage business. (Apr 2011) - Yep, "live and let live" and "keep government out of my business!" You don't get how this stuff works do you?

Support principles embodied in the Equal Rights Amendment. (Feb 2001) - Again, that bastard, he wants equal rights for ALL?!?!

Am I supposed to be ashamed of this stuff? You truly are on the fringe of reality.

Gary Johnson on Corporations

Started a one-man handyman business; grew it to 1,000 people. (Sep 2011) - Doesn't say anything about his rich daddy getting him started in business. Self made man, fits the American ideal.

Eliminate corporate income tax as real way to create jobs. (Jun 2011) - See Fair Tax @ www.fairtax.org
Lower the tax burden; eliminate corporate tax. (May 2011) - Again, See Fair Tax @ www.fairtax.org

Gary Johnson on Crime

1994: Proponent of death penalty, but willing to debate it. (Jan 2012) - Uhh, he has an open mind, how does that work?

Death penalty as a public policy is flawed. (Jan 2012) - Yes, he is correct, absolutely!

Don't risk putting innocent to death. (Aug 2011) - So, are you implying here that you and Romney are in favor of putting innocent people to death? Sounds like good Christian policies!

Half of crime is drug-related; legalizing drugs cuts crime. (Jan 2001) - That is what more and more experts and politicians are saying lately, and making drug use illegal is against liberties. Where are you and Romney on the subject of legal drug abuse, what policies does he have to combat this epidemic that is taking over our country?

Supports flexible federal block grants for crime programs. (Sep 2001) - Empowers states to form their own programs and to work within a budget. No more free hand outs to the states. You don't like this? Why?

Zero tolerance for violence against government employees. (Aug 2001) - Here is one that I am on the fence with....

Gary Johnson on Drugs

75% of border violence with Mexico is due to drugs. (Jun 2011) - Yes, why, do you disagree, and why?

Marijuana is safer than alcohol. (Jun 2011) - That is what some reports show, and besides, both along with tobacco use should be considered personal liberties, and its usage should be of no concern of the government. We don't need a nanny state now do we?

Legalize marijuana instead of 1.8 million arrests and $70B. (May 2011) - Absolutely, the government should stop infringing on personal liberties which in turn will save the tax payer $70 billion a year!

Harm-reduction: health issue rather than criminal issue. (May 2011) - not sure what this is about, and not to concerned..

Drug policy today parallels Prohibition in the 1920's. (May 2011) - Absolutely, you seem to disagree? Not everything is obvious from your bunker is it?

War on Drugs is a miserable failure; $6M for treatment. (Apr 2001) - The war on drugs, like all Conservative wars, is a miserable failure that only adds to government spending at the tax payers expense.

Drug use is up despite $30B spending on War on Drugs. (Jan 2001) - and Iraq is now aligned with Iran after spending nearly a trillion dollars on that war. Again, Conservative policies are expensive, and don't work as their stated goals are presented.

Prescriptions for heroin & methadone at local pharmacy. (Jan 2001) - I can't say that I am for this, but if you look at the effects of prescription drugs on the general public, then we have a far wider conversation to have here. Anal leakage and a threat of stroke anyone?

Allow medical marijuana and needle exchanges. (Jan 2001) - seems he is prophetic since more and more states are legalizing medical marijuana.

More federal funding for all aspects of Drug War. (Aug 2000) - this one seems out of step with everything else you have posted here.

States should make drug policy, not feds. (Aug 2001) - I can go for this, how about you?

I will be honest, there is only one person that I can vote for that I would agree with on 100% of the issues, and that would be me, and I am not running this time around. I am not sure what your point in presenting this information on Gary Johnson was, but I honestly have to say thanks! As I keep saying, I like to have you around, it makes things easier for me to show a different way of looking at things.

So, now how about going through the Romney stuff that I have questioned you on. a little more detail and a little less rhetoric would be interesting.

Here, I missed this one, and I don't want to look like I am avoiding anything -

Stop incurring more debt; balanced budget by 2013. (Jul 2011) - This was a good idea under Clinton, and I don't understand why Bush and the Republican led Congress choose otherwise.

Our debt is greatest threat to our national security. (Jul 2011) - This is true, soon interest payments on the debt incurred by the Presidential and Congressional policies of Reagan, Bush and Bush are going to consume our budget.

Opposed TARP, stimulus & Fannie Mae bailout. (Jul 2011) - I was and am against the TARP stimulus and the bailouts of Freddie and Fannie, this just refinanced the Capitalists and fixed nothing.

End the Fed; they've devalued the dollar by printing money. (May 2011) - Not in total agreement, but open to the conversation.

On verge of financial collapse unless we balance budget. (May 2011) Eventually this will be true...

Balance budget by cutting entitlements AND Defense. (Apr 2011) One must define entitlements, I have heard him speak recently of the need to fix Social Security in order to provide the promises it was built on, and to give block grants to the states for medicare and medicaid. I am all in favor of cutting the defense spending!

Uphold commitments to states before other spending. (Sep 2001) - Not sure what this means, I am ambivalent on this one.

What exactly were you expecting from me by opting this stuff? Do you ever read what I post?

Still waiting there Native....where did I say your bible was "evil"? Where?

Canative seriously you're too funny. You are the only bigoted one here when it comes to politics! Sov is showing right now that he's not bigoted by supporting a person he doesn't agree with on all things, but instead you see that as impossible because you think everyone is as bigoted as you, therefore his support is nefarious. It's all about projection here with you, but we're not all like you canative.

Canative, you should re-read your definition of bigot and re-examine the things you post as well as what I post. You may notice that I am contradicting the perception that you and all of the other Conservative posters have tried to present. This in no way means that I agree with or promote the contrary perception that I present, I only aim to ensure that the over the top, rediculousness that you present is shown to be what it is, radical extremism.

I have never claimed to be a Liberal, and I see no shame in anyone claiming to be one, it's just not my political focus, just like I see no reason for CN to be painted as anti American for his point of view. He like the liberals that post here aren't looking to be the lesser of the two evils as you are.

So, here I am telling you my opinion on who I prefer as a candidate for president, and you want to tell me that I am subvertly trying to promote Obama. Just because I present truthful facts on the president does not mean I am promoting him, I believe in truth and integrity, so to despise him or lie about him because he isn't a Libertarian would be... Bigoted on my part.

You stated, ""Bigot: one fanatically devoted to ones own group, religion, race,or POLITICS and INTOLERANT of those who differ.."

you wouldn't accept anyones views but your own liberal ones..." - now re-read this to yourself but switch the word Conservative with Liberal, and tell me how you don't fit this statement.

I have requested a bunch of answers from you concerning your choice for president. At least show us that you have a clue as to what he stands for and how he has represented himself. After all, you are the one with a credibility issue, and I am sure you don't want us to think you have no clue as to what your representative stands for or what his history is. After all, only one who is "fanatically devoted to ones own group, religion, race,or POLITICS and INTOLERANT of those who differ.." would do something like that.

Still waiting there Native....where did I say your bible was "evil"? Where?

Native, you know I'm going to follow you on this for awhile, right?
"Where you gonna go, where you gonna run, where you gonna hide??"....Body Snatchers..1993