Agreed, that is worse. "I apologize mam, would it make you happy if I cut off my balls and gift wrapped them for you? If not, I'll take the offending employee out back and shoot him." Just remember, the customer is always right...not!

 

My point is that I don't have a party! As an independent I vote for who please. Unchain yourself and divorce yourself from the republicans!

 

Again you need to learn to read my post. I don't prescribe wholeheartedly to either party. I have voted for both Republicans and Democrats in my lifetime. I don't need to unchain myself from anything. As far as voting for who you please, that is your right. As far as telling me who gets my vote that isn't your right, nor do I give a shit who ewe or any other sheep choose to follow. Independent, isn't that just a convenient way to not take a stand? Do you vote for the Independent party representative for President? When the smoke clears and the mirrors are gone the only change will be the color of the party, nothing else.

 

+1 again

 

Hey sugar, let it be known that I don't trust any of those that represent me. I believe it is for all of us to choose the lesser of two evils sometimes based on our values and needs compared to what the candidates represent. I'm glad we all don't agree, what a stagnate society that would be. Though I am heart broken, I think Whitey is asking for a divorce.

 

I don't want either side to get custody of me.

 

Okay, we'll take all the states Obama carried, which includes both coasts with the exception of South Carolina and Georgia. We'll take all of New England, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Nevada, Colorado, Hawaii....and you can have the Deep South, Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, the Dakotas, Arizona, Alaska. One stipulation, though: you have to let all the sane people leave those states for a better life, because they'll be very unhappy when you dismantle Social Security and Medicare. Have fun with your guns!

 

I might vote for the "independent party" rep if I liked them enough or if they even had a chance of winning. Independent is a way of saying I don't agree with the Republicans or the democrats. The last time I considered an independent party member was was Ross Perot ran. But he got flakey, dropped out, and then tried to re-enter later.

 

L4aW1,

Do you mean like "whichever candidate is against abortion" automatically gets my vote irregardless of where they stand on all the other issues???

Or, perhaps which candidate is the most likely candidate to create and jump into a new war???

Or, perhaps, which candidate is less caring about the unfortunate people in our society???

Whitey

 

Again, apparently you read what you want out of any statement, sure you're not a Democrat? For the record, I don't oppose abortion, The Dems have entered us into more war than the Republicans, ie I'm not inclined to vote for those more apt to go to war. Thirdly, keep dreaming if you think the Dems care more for the poor than the Republicans. No politician cares about your ass. Soon as my lawyer finishes preparing the settlement I'll have him send you the papers.

 

The US fails again. A bunch of spoiled kids who don't know how to get along. What are you guys fighting about? I can't make it out as everyone is alwasy yelling on TV, in the streets, at town meetings. America may want to try to communicate to one anothers as adults not liek screaming children and hurling insults at one another.

 

Well, having health care for the uninsured IS helping the the poor. And, I am not talking about MY ass.

 

Well...let's see. The Democrats passed Social Security. They passed the Civil Rights Act. They passed Medicare. Can you name three initiatives as significant as those (in terms of helping the poor), which were enacted by a Republican president and Congress?

 

This thread is entirely to serious and intense. Maybe you ought to take the cause to Bill Riley or Rush Limbaugh. This is a site to get away from the lousy economy and the failings of our government (regardless of the political party).

 

Neither social security or medicare is for the poor, it is for the retired that paid into it. Civil rights act hasn't made the minorities in this country more affluent, the median income hasn't improved for anyone in decades, unless you are talking about the rich. So please explain how the poor are benefitted by plans that are in peril, social security and medicare or a civil rights act that may make it easier to get employed or sue someone for discrimination, but hasn't brought minorities to a higher plain , much less equal to non-minorities. And Whitey, no need in a separate post, the healthcare plan has already had the public option killed by the insurance industry and will not provide for the 40 million uninsured in this country. I know, a bad plan is better than what we have...not. And to all of you one more time, I didn't write the original post, I posted it for discussion. You can take it for what it is, a light hearted poke at Democrats by an apparent Republican. God forbid.

 

Well, I can see that I have to explain things in more detail. The point is not whether or not they are "for" the poor -- the point is that they BENEFIT the poor. Social Security and Medicare benefit the poor because without it, many of them would have no retirement income whatsoever, because their employer doesn't provide a retirement plan and they can't afford to set money aside, and no health care (because they can't afford it). These programs represent an important safety net for the poor.

And to posit that the Civil Rights Act hasn't "brought minorities to a higher plain (sic) is simply nonsense. Were they better off economically under Jim Crow laws?

 

The roots of publicly sponsored health care for the poor in this country go back to the sanitary reform movement of the nineteenth century. Newly established state and local health departments concerned themselves with issues such as refuse disposal, sewage, and housing– all of which were most problematic among the urban poor. Little by little, local health departments became involved in services for mothers and children, nutrition, and infectious disease control and treatment, programs that were often described as “preventive” but that, from the patient’s perspective, provided essential health services. These developments were abetted by federal programs that increasingly funded state and local governments for categorical service delivery activities.? States and localities also sponsored a growing number of institutions to deal with the mentally ill, the developmentally disabled, and, in the case of cities, the acute hospital care needs for poor people. In some areas, modest programs of medical assistance were added to welfare payments for particularly ill or aged poor people.



The Kerr-Mills program of 1960 providing funds to state governments for medical care of the elderly was followed by the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid in 1964. The Neighborhood Health Center Program of the Office of Economic Opportunity, the Community Mental Health Center Act, the Migrant Health Act, the Children and Youth and Maternal and Infant Care Amendments to the Social Security Act, and the National Health Service Corps followed............


PRESIDENT TRUMAN was right, of course. In fact, some of the spadework for what would ultimately come to be known as Medicare was done in the final 3 years of the Truman administration.
http://www.ssa.gov/history/corningchap4.html

 

You need not explain anything to me, much less in detail. You are always free to expand on your thought process teacher. What you insist on calling a benefit is a paid in right for those that receive it whether they be poor, middle class, rich or wealthy. Over fifteen percent of everyone’s pay is paid into FICA for your working life. For this, if I live long enough and they don’t raise full benefit retirement from social security to an even older age, the government will grace me with a paltry monthly stipend and maybe give me a bandage and a pill. Tell you what, all the system does is save people from themselves. I will gladly take the amount I have paid into FICA in my life so far(of course at the rate I would have received if rolled in an IRA or other secure investment form for the period of time I have been paying) The dividend check that amount would pay me monthly today will exceed what our savior, the government plans on giving me in over twenty years from now. How is this of benefit whether you be rich or poor. I’ll tell every working stiff right damn now, if you rolled the amount you will pay into FICA in your life into an IRA you wouldn’t need the pitiful check or healthcare the government has waiting. As far as getting into civil rights and whether they’ve elevated blacks and other minorities to a higher fiscal plain start a thread and I’ll be happy to tell you why I think it has fallen short and how I believe selective segregation still flourishes. I understand that civil and voters rights acts ended Jim Crow era, but mostly on a social level through desegregation. From a fiscal level, “Jim Crow” may be dead, but there is still a “Lil’ Sparrow” going on around here.

*Now I must drop to my knees in front of teacher and repeat fifty times “All Republicans hate blacks, gays and poor people, love war and torture, believe God will lead them and guns are more fun than sex.” Hope she is sporting her short skirt and heels. “WHACK” of ruler.*

 

Thanks for the post twofeathers and the link.