Who Can Beat Trump?

[David Horn]

(09-23-2018, 06:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-23-2018, 09:37 AM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-22-2018, 10:51 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Show me a welfare recipient who isn't dependent on the welfare system. If you find one then explain to me why they're still on it.

Show me a grain farmer or military contractor who isn't dependent on government largess.  They are a lot bigger money drains than a few welfare recipients, almost all of whom have health issues of some kind.

Well, the farm subsidy bills were passed when the Democrats were more associated with small farm owners and labor. On the other hand, the military contractor provides a service that our government pays them to do for them. Now, I don't how many small farm owners who still vote Democratic are left these days who still need the subsidy's to remain competitive and remain in business or how many third world people there are aboard who need subsidized/free wheat to live on or how many poor people there are within the country who need cheap food to eat these days but I'm sure there's quite a few. I don't know, I don't live in farm country, I don't eat cheap bread and I'm not an extremely poor person living in a third country abroad that has little to nothing as far as infrastructure.

Primarily, farm subsidies go to wealthy farmers with huge farms.  They come in the form of subsidized crop insurance (its handy to never lose on a bad crop) and land set-asides that are money paid to do nothing -- like welfare but without the work requirement.  There are very few crops that get subsidies: corn, wheat and soybeans are the main ones, and those farmers are almost 100% Republican.  

And military contractors are the scourge Dwight Eisenhower warned us about.  If you have a job with a larger contractor, you are well paid.  Why?  Because contractors typically charge Uncle Sam based on Cost-Plus pricing.  In a Cost-Plus contract, the contractor receives a fixed percentage of costs as profit, making excessive cost a prime money maker.   Firm Fixed price contracts exist, but they are restricted to low risk contracts, like providing meals to the troops, but not in war zones.  And building anything is cost-overrun heaven.

[David Horn]

(09-24-2018, 03:34 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: The supposed veneration of work by Republicans can't continue. Robots are taking over most jobs, and humans won't even be needed for most of them much longer. The issue then, is why should the owners of the machines get all the income from production? They don't deserve them. Robots were supposed to save labor; they can't do that if all they do is kick people out of their jobs to starve on the street.

David pointed out the other kinds of welfare. Corporate welfare is a big deal. Military payments go to people and products who never do anything for our country but fight sometimes in wars to protect the oil business, which we don't need anymore anyway. It is the biggest "make-work" welfare industry. Conservative libertarians assume that everyone can be self-reliant, and any help from government is dependency. But it is really insurance, which we all might need, because bosses are capricious and fire people for no reason, or for reasons out of their control, or to ship their jobs overseas, or replace people with robots, or buy out companies for "efficiency" which also means firing workers. And people are not paid a living wage, which means they must go on welfare or food stamps, which means that it's really the companies that refuse to pay their workers, whom our welfare taxes are paying for.

Libertarians also say people in the free market can just take their talents and energy elsewhere and get better wages at another company. But not only are most companies corporate oligarchies these days, and collude to keep wages down, but most companies don't pay living wages without the government requiring them to do so, so there's no other jobs to go to. Libertarians also say that if companies put out bad products, they will go out of business in the free market. But before liberals like Ralph Nader came along, or the muckrakers of the progressive movement, companies put out bad products anyway, and consumers had no say. There were no alternatives. Before unions and government regulations, workers had no ability to bargain for decent working hours, conditions or wages, and they didn't have them. The free market provided none of the alleged opportunities, except for a few greedy rich bosses, whom the libertarians protect. And the environment became a junk heap with poisoned air, water and land. Libertarians are just stupid; that's one reason why their party never gets anywhere.

Yeah, they don't want the government involved, because the government is 'force', and they don't want private sector alternatives like unions either.  The third alternative is violence, because the people meekly dying to keep the rich in clover is not going to happen.  It's the inherent fallacy that never gets addressed by the people most invested in the idea.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-23-2018, 05:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-23-2018, 03:00 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: No, if you cannot comprehend the note, you obviously have a blind spot.  Then again, if you can't tell a Democrat from a communist, you obviously have another blind spot.  You emphatically don't read just fine if your blind spots show so much.

Blind spots? Did you not see that I saw reddish? Do you not see that I was able to comprehend and identify your worldview and pick a term that described it that nearly everyone is able recognize, comprehend and understand the meaning of and it's origin as well. I think I hit the nail on the head. As far as bad nails (human farces) go, you either hit them square  and sink them in with a hammer or you toss them on the ground and leave them to sink into the ground by themselves

Well, you did use the highly technical word 'mush'.  You couldn't comprehend my world view at all.  If you can figure it out, I could give a meaningful response.  In the meanwhile, blind spot.

(09-23-2018, 05:09 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote: The Democrats are the ones in office/ lawmakers/ policy makers. The communists, socialists, fascists, anarchists  and traditional rank and file Democrats are their voters, their primary political bases, financial contributors, interest groups, campaign supporters and volunteers and so forth. Yes, its harder to distinguish/ tell who is who, who is what, who wants what, who is voting for what, who prefers what system, who is voting for what kind of system and so forth as these questions pertain to the Democratic base. Yes, its harder to figure out what the Democrat is willing to support or go along with and it is harder to see/decipher  what the Democrats are truly  about, what the party actually represents and what they actually want to accomplish as a party  these days.

I at least recognize the communists, socialists, fascists, anarchists as outlier fanatics.  Going after those votes would lose one votes in the base.  For that reason alone I would avoid going after that fringe vote.  The racist -fascist vote?  That is the Southern Strategy.  I would put that with the red south.

I note that whatever you represent, you call yourself American.    You reject socialism, even though it could be painted as the Constitution's general welfare.  You go against equality, even if that is the first of Jefferson's self evident truths.  I would again say the label American can be claimed by people with diverse views.  It is not owned by people with one view.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-24-2018, 03:45 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: And we can blame the Democrats-in-name-only (DINOs) in 2009 for that. If we had medicare for all, our low medicare taxes could be raised to cover everybody, and the pool of contributors would be much larger, payments to medical providers would be lower because of the regulations and common market, and payments would not just be going to sicker older people. 

With no public option, and now with no mandate, premiums for Obamacare have risen. And red states cut off medicaid programs, so they got no money to cover it, and that may have had the effect of raising rates too in the exchanges.

So, you would prefer a government monopoly or single payer as you say. Hmm, I think you'll need a communist, socialist or fascist system to be fully established in order to legally accomplish it here. Now, I don't know how many health insurance companies where in business and providing health insurance to millions of business's and millions upon million of customers at the time Great Britain and most of Europe were establishing single payer systems in their countries.

[Eric the Green]

(09-24-2018, 11:46 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-24-2018, 03:45 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: And we can blame the Democrats-in-name-only (DINOs) in 2009 for that. If we had medicare for all, our low medicare taxes could be raised to cover everybody, and the pool of contributors would be much larger, payments to medical providers would be lower because of the regulations and common market, and payments would not just be going to sicker older people. 

With no public option, and now with no mandate, premiums for Obamacare have risen. And red states cut off medicaid programs, so they got no money to cover it, and that may have had the effect of raising rates too in the exchanges.

So, you would prefer a government monopoly or single payer as you say. Hmm, I think you'll need a communist, socialist or fascist system to be fully established in order to legally accomplish it here. Now, I don't know how many health insurance companies  where in business and providing health insurance to millions of business's and millions upon million of customers at the time Great Britain and most of Europe were  establishing single payer systems in their countries.

I don't know, but those countries didn't become fascist or communist in order to make the change. And it works well for them at lower prices than in the USA. Private insurance is an unnecessary middle man. Get rid of it and costs go down.

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-24-2018, 11:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(09-24-2018, 11:46 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-24-2018, 03:45 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: And we can blame the Democrats-in-name-only (DINOs) in 2009 for that. If we had medicare for all, our low medicare taxes could be raised to cover everybody, and the pool of contributors would be much larger, payments to medical providers would be lower because of the regulations and common market, and payments would not just be going to sicker older people. 

With no public option, and now with no mandate, premiums for Obamacare have risen. And red states cut off medicaid programs, so they got no money to cover it, and that may have had the effect of raising rates too in the exchanges.

So, you would prefer a government monopoly or single payer as you say. Hmm, I think you'll need a communist, socialist or fascist system to be fully established in order to legally accomplish it here. Now, I don't know how many health insurance companies  where in business and providing health insurance to millions of business's and millions upon million of customers at the time Great Britain and most of Europe were  establishing single payer systems in their countries.

I don't know, but those countries didn't become fascist or communist in order to make the change. And it works well for them at lower prices than in the USA. Private insurance is an unnecessary middle man. Get rid of it and costs go down.

Eric, no health care insurance companies aren't middle men, they're a racket. Think about it. How many companies are there that don't want their customers to actually use their product? Also, what about folks who have pre existing conditions?  Free markets = fail as far as providing health care. Health care is a right, not a privilege. Besides Walfart and Bezo's sweatshops don't offer healthcare in any event. I wonder if ClassicXer would support drug imports? That's free enterprise to get more competition for our Big Pharma racket.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-25-2018, 12:49 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Eric, no health care insurance companies aren't middle men, they're a racket. Think about it. How many companies are there that don't want their customers to actually use their product? Also, what about folks who have pre existing conditions?  Free markets = fail as far as providing health care. Health care is a right, not a privilege. Besides Walfart and Bezo's sweatshops don't offer healthcare in any event. I wonder if ClassicXer would support drug imports? That's free enterprise to get more competition for our Big Pharma racket.

Actually, health insurance isn't a right or a privilege, it's a commodity. I wouldn't be opposed to importing approved drugs from other country's.

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-25-2018, 01:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 12:49 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Eric, no health care insurance companies aren't middle men, they're a racket. Think about it. How many companies are there that don't want their customers to actually use their product? Also, what about folks who have pre existing conditions?  Free markets = fail as far as providing health care. Health care is a right, not a privilege. Besides Walfart and Bezo's sweatshops don't offer healthcare in any event. I wonder if ClassicXer would support drug imports? That's free enterprise to get more competition for our Big Pharma racket.

Actually, health insurance isn't a right or a privilege, it's a commodity. I wouldn't be opposed to importing approved drugs from other country's.

Healthcare is a commodity, like say food. ?  Dunno, but when I get to be an old fuck in say 10 years, I don't want to have to rely on cat food if my IRA goes south.  So how about cat food for you and at least some cheetos for me? The same goes for healthcare.  I can't foresee what my income will be in ten years hence, so I'll take social insurance, like single payer. Feel free to advocate for taking the Russian Roulette option yourself. Think about it, one car wreck, a cancer diagnosis, a tornado wrecking you and your business. Then what?  I think that's the bullet O'fate at your head, man.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-25-2018, 01:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 12:49 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Eric, no health care insurance companies aren't middle men, they're a racket. Think about it. How many companies are there that don't want their customers to actually use their product? Also, what about folks who have pre existing conditions?  Free markets = fail as far as providing health care. Health care is a right, not a privilege. Besides Walfart and Bezo's sweatshops don't offer healthcare in any event. I wonder if ClassicXer would support drug imports? That's free enterprise to get more competition for our Big Pharma racket.

Actually, health insurance isn't a right or a privilege, it's a commodity. I wouldn't be opposed to importing approved drugs from other country's.

Actually, it is a right in America.  It is listed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which the US signed and the congress ratified.

Oh, sorry.  You are not into reality...

Then again health care is listed next to food, shelter and retirement.  Food is generally considered a commodity, if not other rights?  They are not exclusively put in one category only?

[Eric the Green]

(09-25-2018, 02:29 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 01:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 12:49 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Eric, no health care insurance companies aren't middle men, they're a racket. Think about it. How many companies are there that don't want their customers to actually use their product? Also, what about folks who have pre existing conditions?  Free markets = fail as far as providing health care. Health care is a right, not a privilege. Besides Walfart and Bezo's sweatshops don't offer healthcare in any event. I wonder if ClassicXer would support drug imports? That's free enterprise to get more competition for our Big Pharma racket.

Actually, health insurance isn't a right or a privilege, it's a commodity. I wouldn't be opposed to importing approved drugs from other country's.

Healthcare is a commodity, like say food. ?  Dunno, but when I get to be an old fuck in say 10 years, I don't want to have to rely on cat food if my IRA goes south.  So how about cat food for you and at least some cheetos for me? The same goes for healthcare.  I can't foresee what my income will be in ten years hence, so I'll take social insurance, like single payer. Feel free to advocate for taking the Russian Roulette option yourself. Think about it, one car wreck, a cancer diagnosis, a tornado wrecking you and your business. Then what?  I think that's the bullet O'fate at your head, man.

I agree. As an old fuck, if I had no insurance, I'd have lost much of my savings by now.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-25-2018, 08:21 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 01:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 12:49 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Eric, no health care insurance companies aren't middle men, they're a racket. Think about it. How many companies are there that don't want their customers to actually use their product? Also, what about folks who have pre existing conditions?  Free markets = fail as far as providing health care. Health care is a right, not a privilege. Besides Walfart and Bezo's sweatshops don't offer healthcare in any event. I wonder if ClassicXer would support drug imports? That's free enterprise to get more competition for our Big Pharma racket.

Actually, health insurance isn't a right or a privilege, it's a commodity. I wouldn't be opposed to importing approved drugs from other country's.

Actually, it is a right in America.  It is listed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which the US signed and the congress ratified.

Oh, sorry.  You are not into reality...

Then again health care is listed next to food, shelter and retirement.  Food is generally considered a commodity, if not other rights?  They are not exclusively put in one category only?

How many Americans recognize the United Nations as their government/ governing authority these days? Someone's not into reality. Who is it? I'll leave that question to the viewers/readers to decide themselves.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-25-2018, 02:29 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 01:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 12:49 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Eric, no health care insurance companies aren't middle men, they're a racket. Think about it. How many companies are there that don't want their customers to actually use their product? Also, what about folks who have pre existing conditions?  Free markets = fail as far as providing health care. Health care is a right, not a privilege. Besides Walfart and Bezo's sweatshops don't offer healthcare in any event. I wonder if ClassicXer would support drug imports? That's free enterprise to get more competition for our Big Pharma racket.

Actually, health insurance isn't a right or a privilege, it's a commodity. I wouldn't be opposed to importing approved drugs from other country's.

Healthcare is a commodity, like say food. ?  Dunno, but when I get to be an old fuck in say 10 years, I don't want to have to rely on cat food if my IRA goes south.  So how about cat food for you and at least some cheetos for me? The same goes for healthcare.  I can't foresee what my income will be in ten years hence, so I'll take social insurance, like single payer. Feel free to advocate for taking the Russian Roulette option yourself. Think about it, one car wreck, a cancer diagnosis, a tornado wrecking you and your business. Then what?  I think that's the bullet O'fate at your head, man.

Yep, it's a commodity like food, shelter, clothes. fishing boats, atv's, automobiles and so forth. Dude, I have several insurance policies in place that are associated with all the situations and the issues that you've raised. Is it accurate to say that I'm not much like you or any blues who post here.

[Ragnarök_62]

(09-25-2018, 05:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 02:29 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 01:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 12:49 AM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: Eric, no health care insurance companies aren't middle men, they're a racket. Think about it. How many companies are there that don't want their customers to actually use their product? Also, what about folks who have pre existing conditions?  Free markets = fail as far as providing health care. Health care is a right, not a privilege. Besides Walfart and Bezo's sweatshops don't offer healthcare in any event. I wonder if ClassicXer would support drug imports? That's free enterprise to get more competition for our Big Pharma racket.

Actually, health insurance isn't a right or a privilege, it's a commodity. I wouldn't be opposed to importing approved drugs from other country's.

Healthcare is a commodity, like say food. ?  Dunno, but when I get to be an old fuck in say 10 years, I don't want to have to rely on cat food if my IRA goes south.  So how about cat food for you and at least some cheetos for me? The same goes for healthcare.  I can't foresee what my income will be in ten years hence, so I'll take social insurance, like single payer. Feel free to advocate for taking the Russian Roulette option yourself. Think about it, one car wreck, a cancer diagnosis, a tornado wrecking you and your business. Then what?  I think that's the bullet O'fate at your head, man.

Yep, it's a commodity like food, shelter, clothes. fishing boats, atv's, automobiles and so forth. Dude, I have several insurance policies in place that are associated with all the situations and the issues that you've raised. Is it accurate to say that I'm not much like you or any blues who post here.

So, how long do those policies last if you run out of money to pay for them? I don't need Ishits to live, but I do need food, shelter, water, health, and clothing. There are needs and wants you know. I agree you're not like any of the blues that post here, though.  I agree with that part, man. It's like I believe that social insurance if a needed thing because I trust government far more than oligarchs like Bezos, Fuckerburg, Kroch Brothers, etc. It seems like you like Gilded ages.

[Classic-Xer]

(09-25-2018, 06:19 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: So, how long do those policies last if you run out of money to pay for them? I don't need Ishits to live, but I do need food, shelter, water, health, and clothing. There are needs and wants you know. I agree you're not like any of the blues that post here, though.  I agree with that part, man. It's like I believe that social insurance if a needed thing because I trust government far more than oligarchs like Bezos, Fuckerburg, Kroch Brothers, etc. It seems like you like Gilded ages.

I don't trust government with much of anything important these days.

[Galen]

(09-25-2018, 05:01 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 08:21 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Actually, it is a right in America.  It is listed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which the US signed and the congress ratified.

Oh, sorry.  You are not into reality...

Then again health care is listed next to food, shelter and retirement.  Food is generally considered a commodity, if not other rights?  They are not exclusively put in one category only?

How many Americans recognize the United Nations as their government/ governing authority these days? Someone's not into reality. Who is it? I'll leave that question to the viewers/readers to decide themselves.

Just because UN says something that doesn't make it so.  Come to think of it declarations by governments are pretty worthless.

[pbrower2a]

(09-26-2018, 02:55 AM)Galen Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 05:01 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 08:21 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: Actually, it is a right in America.  It is listed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which the US signed and the congress ratified.

Oh, sorry.  You are not into reality...

Then again health care is listed next to food, shelter and retirement.  Food is generally considered a commodity, if not other rights?  They are not exclusively put in one category only?

How many Americans recognize the United Nations as their government/ governing authority these days? Someone's not into reality. Who is it? I'll leave that question to the viewers/readers to decide themselves.

Just because UN says something that doesn't make it so.  Come to think of it declarations by governments are pretty worthless.

Here's one government declaration that seems extremely valuable to people who had lacked freedom:

Quote:By the President of the United States of America:
A Proclamation.
Whereas, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, a proclamation was issued by the President of the United States, containing, among other things, the following, to wit:
"That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom.
"That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States."
Now, therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against the United States, the following, to wit:
Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)], and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation were not issued.
And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.
And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages.
And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service.
And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.
Done at the City of Washington, this first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty three, and of the Independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh.
By the President: ABRAHAM LINCOLN
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.

[David Horn]

(09-25-2018, 05:01 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 08:21 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 01:57 AM)Classic-Xer Wrote: Actually, health insurance isn't a right or a privilege, it's a commodity. I wouldn't be opposed to importing approved drugs from other country's.

Actually, it is a right in America.  It is listed in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, which the US signed and the congress ratified.

Oh, sorry.  You are not into reality...

How many Americans recognize the United Nations as their government/ governing authority these days? Someone's not into reality. Who is it? I'll leave that question to the viewers/readers to decide themselves.

If the declaration was signed by the President and ratified by Congress, it's the law of the land.  That it originated elsewhere is unimportant.  It's a law … here … because our government made it so.

[David Horn]

(09-25-2018, 10:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 06:19 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: So, how long do those policies last if you run out of money to pay for them? I don't need Ishits to live, but I do need food, shelter, water, health, and clothing. There are needs and wants you know. I agree you're not like any of the blues that post here, though.  I agree with that part, man. It's like I believe that social insurance if a needed thing because I trust government far more than oligarchs like Bezos, Fuckerburg, Kroch Brothers, etc. It seems like you like Gilded ages.

I don't trust government with much of anything important these days.

OK.  I don't trust private enterprise at all, so it's a push.

[Bob Butler 54]

(09-26-2018, 12:20 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 10:52 PM)Classic-Xer Wrote:

(09-25-2018, 06:19 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: So, how long do those policies last if you run out of money to pay for them? I don't need Ishits to live, but I do need food, shelter, water, health, and clothing. There are needs and wants you know. I agree you're not like any of the blues that post here, though.  I agree with that part, man. It's like I believe that social insurance if a needed thing because I trust government far more than oligarchs like Bezos, Fuckerburg, Kroch Brothers, etc. It seems like you like Gilded ages.

I don't trust government with much of anything important these days.

OK.  I don't trust private enterprise at all, so it's a push.

I wouldn't trust either.  Both can and will try to abuse if they don't have an effective check and balance on them.  To the extent that the government has been bought by the corporations and their owners, we have checks and balances on neither.

What did Reagan claim?  "Trust but verify?"  We need both clearly.

[Eric the Green]

I love good ol Michael. He's promoting his latest movie Fahrenheit 11/9. He is smart and honest, and a genuinely nice guy, in spite of his image forged at his over-the-top ranting speech when accepting his oscar years ago. I haven't done a scoring of Tom Hanks yet, and his other suggestions for presidential candidates won't win. But otherwise he tells the truth. I think he himself has the stuff to run for president and win (score 16-6), but nothing except his willingness to be Tom Hanks' veep has surfaced yet.