And the winner of tonight's Republican debate...

friedgreencorrado wrote:

oldsaw wrote:

JeffHarbert wrote: Right, socialism. Because we didn't have police & fire departments, public schools, paved roads, or subsidized crops & petroleum before Obama came along.

Nothing you've listed there defines socialism, but keep tryin'.............

Dude, seriously? I'm not trying to be your "enemy" here, (because we've had so many great conversations on so many other threads, and GRM forums are so much better than others about letting us talk about our different opinions)..but think about it for a minute. Real socialism isn't all that crap that Marx & co. tried to shove on the impoverished millions for his own ego, but a simple agreement that if we all have to pay taxes, that money should be used to improve our society. IMO, if roads were "privatized", there'd be a toll booth every 100ft. (I exaggerate, I know.. ) If people had to pay out of pocket for police & fire protection, many would die. Aren't people more important than money? I have to admit, one of the reasons I'm so dissapointed with President Obama is that the "health care reform" he finally decided to support is (again, IMO) a multi-million dollar gift to private insurance companies. Forcing people who are already poor to *buy* private health insurance coverage isn't "socialism". Perhaps the subsidies the gov't claims they will provide *is*, but to me it seems like a complete waste of money (because the initial concept is so flawed). There'll eventually be a "need" for a new gov't agency to oversee the program. Does that sound like "limited government" to you, sir? Oldsaw, you know I love ya (in a Bud Light commercial sort of way). I just really disagree with you on this stuff. http://adland.tv/commercials/bud-light-i-love-you-man-charlton-heston-1996-030-usa

Sorry, guys, but both of you (FGC and Jeff) are barking at the wrong moon.

If you are claiming that law enforcement, fire protection, education, infrastructure creation and maintenance are what now defines "socialism", well, you're both very adept at lowering the bar.

Taiden wrote: The only thing I have to add is, I wish we had a three party system. And no, the greenbackers or whatever they are called don't count.

.... paging Ross Perot

JG Pasterjak wrote: And, seriously, how did Michelle Bachmann get elected to any sort of public office? Was she running against a broken chair? Did the chair molest a kid? Still, it must have been close between her and the kid-touching broken chair.

Seriously, she strikes me as Palin without the charisma or looks. What is the draw?

Allow me to repeat myself:

In reply to oldsaw: Show us how any of the things I mentioned are not covered in the very definition you linked to. I'll show the first one here for kicks:

Socialsm: 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

You mean like police & fire departments, public schools, paved roads, or subsidized crops & petroleum?

Gasp.

bluej wrote: Oh, and red arrow diner is 24/7

Amen to that, SWMBO and I were there this morning. Supposedly just missed Jon Stewart.

(sits back to watch the political fireworks)

friedgreencorrado wrote: The appropriation of the Republican Party by "social" conservatives, rather than fiscal ones. Barry Goldwater tried to warn folks about this *years* ago. http://www.examiner.com/democrat-in-hartford/barry-goldwater-s-warning-to-republicans I'm a leftie..but I sure miss the days when "the loyal opposition" were still capable of compromise, and not wedded to the batBMWE36 crazy part of this nation.

I totally agree with you. I am socially liberal and fisically conservative.. the exact opposite of what the Republican Party is becomming...

And wasn't compromise one of those things that made this country great?

JeffHarbert wrote: Allow me to repeat myself: Gasp.

Living things gasp when they are suffocating.

Perhaps you could invest some quality time and watch (and listen) to the entire conversation between Milton Friedman, his host and his audience.

Do that and you'll have far more understanding of my stance..........

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1lWk4TCe4U

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Lp2kGJASGY&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GapXLpLoZBs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0Ocv8aMBjk&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brBvdjoNC6Y&feature=related

JG Pasterjack wrote: And the winner of tonight's Republican debate...

The Democrats.

Taiden wrote: The only thing I have to add is, I wish we had a three party system. And no, the greenbackers or whatever they are called don't count.

We have one.

Unfortunately, they appear to be without any type of viable candidate.

On a happier not; Obama is visiting Puerto Rico this week to shore up his fan base.

He could have just come here sunday for the parade

Is Puerto Rico still the primary recipient of U.S. Food Stamps? If I recall, they used to receive about 50% of the total U.S. Food Stamp budget. The whole PR economy was run on it, with rum production and tourists way below. I guess that now that the program has been expanded so that TWELVE PERCENT of the U.S. is on FOOD STAMPS, Puerto Rico may not be still getting half of the US budget for it.

Yeah, PR is a great place for The O.

Whoa!!!

This isn't where i parked my car....

flountown wrote: I am hoping Ron Paul can make some more headway this time around...I have to say I am a fan...

Ditto. Unfortunately I doubt he will.

In elementary school, the teacher taught you 2+2 = 4, and why, and gave you examples of how it did.

In college, the professor threw a differential equation up on the board, set up the boundary conditions, and moved on, because the answer is obvious from there.

Ron Paul needs to learn this. When he goes up and says something about auditing the federal reserve or returning to the gold standard, 90% of Americans are like 2nd graders in differential equations class. They don't understand that stuff unless it's spoon fed to them.

If he learned this lesson and got more charisma, he could seriously do a lot of good. Until then, me and my like-minded buds will vote for him but the average Joe will vote for the guy who talks last and makes the most passionate spoon feeding.

Obama's not hitting on all cylinders either.

Taiden wrote: The only thing I have to add is, I wish we had a three party system. And no, the greenbackers or whatever they are called don't count.

I think we should have a no party system.

RossD wrote: I think we should have a no party system.

Whatever party we do have - invite these two.

I thought that Bachmann came across less nutty than she does on talk radio. Still nutty, just not full on moon bat.

Santorum made the most definitive pro-life statement, and in doing so I think sealed up that part of the party, though I think that EVERYONE overestimates how big that part of the party is.

Romney maintained his meh.

Ron Paul continues to say the right things in the wrong way.

Newt may have had the biggest bump, but from the lowest starting point. He's unelectable, and that's sad, as he may be the smartest man on the stage.

Cain wasn't in his groove. The man is an awesome speaker, but he kept tripping over himself. That was disappointing, as he's one of my favorites.

I give the win to Powlenty. He didn't have any standout moments, but he didn't shoot himself in the foot much either. The worst moment for him was when the moderator asked him to address his "Obamneycare" statement, and rather than actually address it he whithered.

The most revealing perhaps where the "quicky" questions (Elvis vs. Cash, Coke or Pepsi, etc.). Stupid questions, but when a candidate can't be decisive enough to pick their favorite between two options (Bachmann - BOTH!) then that speaks poorly to them. I was also disappointed that none of them would give a straight answer on the VP question. Yeah, the moderator was trying to paint them into a corner, and I get not allowing that, but still - I want someone decisive.

I also think that it's BS to try to limit the answers to 30 seconds. We've got real problems. We need real solutions, not soundbites. Were I the moderator, I'd let them talk until they meandered off topic. Most times, that would be less than 10 seconds, but limiting Newt to 30 seconds on a cohesive answer to illegal immigration was also bullE36 M3.

In reply to oldsaw:

This guy is clearly suicidal. He is against safety equipment which is against the very seed of grassroots. Anything he says should surely be taken with a grain of salt. He will probably try to take as many people down with him as he possibly can.

You have been warned.

In reply to N Sperlo:

Who is the "which guy" you refer to?

oldsaw wrote: Sorry, guys, but both of you (FGC and Jeff) are barking at the wrong moon. If you are claiming that law enforcement, fire protection, education, infrastructure creation and maintenance are what now defines "socialism", well, you're both very adept at lowering the bar.

Socialism, by the definition you provided, defines those systems. You are entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts. Man up and admit you've hung yourself. That or continue to be obstinate. Either way you've lost.

Dr. Hess wrote: Is Puerto Rico still the primary recipient of U.S. Food Stamps? If I recall, they used to receive about 50% of the total U.S. Food Stamp budget. The whole PR economy was run on it, with rum production and tourists way below. I guess that now that the program has been expanded so that TWELVE PERCENT of the U.S. is on FOOD STAMPS, Puerto Rico may not be still getting half of the US budget for it.

I think a lot of the food stamp growth could be attributed to the faltering economy, loss of jobs, and other factors. I'm not exactly sure that 100% of it is due to expansion of the service.

Dr. Hess wrote: I suspect "The Fix is In" for The O's reelection. His socialism agenda isn't done yet. The R's, most of whom are in on the plan, are letting him run with it because the end result of all socialism/communism/totalitarianism systems is... The rich get richer and the middle class gets eliminated.

I could argue the Republicans are quite adept at expanding the gap between rich and poor. By cutting social programs designed to help poor folks move up in society they limit the ability for the poor to become middle class and the middle class to grow. All while Republicans talk about how poor as a country we are but we most definitely CANNOT cut tax benefits and other government largess to the oil companies. I mean whatever would those poor oil companies do? Make billions of dollars in profit instead of tens of billions? How would they ever survive?

Republicans are for the rich and corporate. They do not benefit anyone outside of those groups.

Exxon Mobil profit nears $11 billion

In reply to oldsaw: You focus on the one single word that didn't have anything to do with the point I was making and then tell me to watch some videos so someone else can do the talking for you.

JeffHarbert wrote: In reply to oldsaw: You focus on the one single word that didn't have anything to do with the point I was making and then tell me to watch some videos so someone else can do the talking for you.

I know right?! "Go watch two hours of video propaganda and maybe you'll agree with me once you're done."

FO REALZ!

JeffHarbert wrote: In reply to oldsaw: You focus on the one single word that didn't have anything to do with the point I was making and then tell me to watch some videos so someone else can do the talking for you.

It started with this:

JeffHarbert wrote: Right, socialism. Because we didn't have police & fire departments, public schools, paved roads, or subsidized crops & petroleum before Obama came along.

So, explain the point you intended to make. The above quote insinuates that necessary governmental functions define socialism. I disagreed and simply provided a dictionary reference as a partial clarificaiton of the term. What part of that do you not understand?

Re: the Friedman videos - the man was a free-marketer who eloquently illustrated how government expansion and intrusion into free markets causes more damage than the problems it intended to alleviate. Since I don't have a Nobel Prize in Economics on my resume, I deferred to someone who does.

In reply to oldsaw:

The older gentleman in video one. Did I not give enough info to go on?