Wow, uphill battle with this person!

[Tod]

I posted the following on Facebook:

The media silence was deafening after Ron Paul won the California Straw Poll by a landslide.
Article on the Hill, Ron Paul wins big in California. Major media ignore him (though Drudge does not)

And got this response, my first reply to one of my Ron Paul posts other than three "likes" by two other people for other posts.

Because he's insignificant. He will never win any presidential election. Thank God! Gotta love those supposed christians that cheer on the death of a fellow American if he does not have health care or those who cheer Rick Perry (aka Jethro Bodine) for executing the most death row inmates. Jesus must be proud. Jesus said that we are to help those most in need. Republicans and christian just don't mesh together well in todays politics as republicans motto is 'Your on your own sucker'. God is NOT a republican. Ron Paul would not help poor women when he was practicing medicine. American greed is going to be the downfall of this country. We need a strong middle class or corporations will fail because we working class can't afford to buy their products. Working class Americans ARE the job creators. I try to educate myself and make an informed descision. I don't listen to mindless rich radio personalities nor one news station to form my opinion. I hope you do too! Peace.

There is so much incorrect information in that post, I wasn't sure where to start, but this is what I ended up writing in response:

Hi, S_____! I was beginning to think no one ever read my political posts! I'm not sure where you got your information concerning Dr. Paul, but the way I understand it, his view is that charity is a good thing. On the other hand, forcibly taking from someone else to give to a charity case is a bad thing. When Dr. Paul was practicing, he never accepted Medicare/Medicaid but never turned a patient away if they couldn't afford to pay. The Charity Awards presented Dr. Paul with a "Lifetime Acheivement Award" for being what the Co-Chairman of the Awards described as, "America's foremost champion of the Constitutional Rights of Nongovernmental Organizations". If you would like to learn more about Dr. Paul's stance on healthcare, visit http://www.ronpaul2012.com/the-issues/health-care/

[specsaregood]

I'd also mention that dr. paul is anti-death penalty. and that Dr. Paul didn't cheer for letting someboy die either, he clearly said, "No". As in he would do his best to help the person, he doesn't need the government to force him to help.

[dannno]

Wow, that was an excellent response OP..


The above post by specs is also well worth mentioning.

[CaptUSA]

Jesus said that we are to help those most in need.

Exactly.

He didn't say that we should force people to give their money to bureaucrats that only pretend to help people, while making themselves rich. And in turn, end up hurting people more than they help them.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

I am pretty sure that the Bible said that stealing was bad as well but your friend seems to have no problem with the idea of a government stealing from me for the benefit of others.

[CaptainAmerica]

Looks like there is no hope for that socialist.

[dannno]

Looks like there is no hope for that socialist.

What? Why?

We haven't even gotten a reply yet..

There are plenty of people who think that we "should" help others because they need help, and so whatever way society can do that is fine. What they don't see are the reasons why many of those unfortunate situations exist in the first place (such as high health care costs or the Federal Reserve destroying wages through inflation) and then on top of that the unintended consequences of a welfare state.

[Todd]

Exactly.

He didn't say that we should force people to give their money to bureaucrats that only pretend to help people, while making themselves rich. And in turn, end up hurting people more than they help them.

Whenever someone uses the Bible as an excuse for the government to confiscate money to give to the poor, I always refer to the story of Jesus meeting the rich man. Jesus meets the rich man and says he should give up his riches voluntarily.

He didn't beat the guy over the head with the Bible and then have some of his disciples take it. No where does Jesus ever advocate the taking by force of someone's wealth. It had to be a choice.

[jmdrake]

I posted the following on Facebook:



And got this response, my first reply to one of my Ron Paul posts other than three "likes" by two other people for other posts.



There is so much incorrect information in that post, I wasn't sure where to start, but this is what I ended up writing in response:

Great response! I would add this. The media has been lying about the entire exchange. Nobody ever applauded at someone being allowed to die. The crowd applauded when Ron Paul endorsed the idea of freedom and responsibility and when Ron Paul said that in his day they never turned anyone away who needed medical care.

See:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...-someone-witho
Exactly how do anchors on MSNBC get away with routinely stating complete falsehoods without any repercussions?

On Tuesday, Chris Matthews wrongly accused Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul of saying during the previous evening's debate he would let a critically ill person die if the patient didn't have health insurance (video follows with transcript and commentary, file photo):

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I have to say, I’ve never witnessed such a crackle of enthusiasm for executing people as I heard at the Reagan Library debate last week. I recalled it last night when I heard the clap of applause when Ron Paul said he’d let someone die if they failed to pony up for health insurance.

Actually, that's not what Paul said Monday. Here's the entire exchange:

WOLF BLITZER, CNN: Before I get to Michele Bachmann, I want to just -- you're a physician, Ron Paul, so you're a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.

A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.

Who's going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL (R-TEXAS): Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.

BLITZER: Well, what do you want?

PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced --

BLITZER: But he doesn't have that. He doesn't have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?

PAUL: That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody --

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

PAUL: No.

That bears repeating:

BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

PAUL: No.

What did Matthews claim?

"Ron Paul said he’d let someone die if they failed to pony up for health insurance."

That's not what Paul said, is it? For the record, here's the rest of the Congressman's answer:

PAUL: I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea, that's the reason the cost is so high.

The cost is so high because they dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies and the drug companies, and then on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar, we have lack of competition.

There's no competition in medicine. Everybody is protected by licensing. And we should actually legalize alternative health care, allow people to practice what they want.

Exactly how does Matthews and others on his so-called "news" network continue to get away with such blatant misrepresentations?

As I've said many times, in any other industry in our country, a person would be suspended or fired for such dishonestly or negligence.

Why are journalists not held to the same professional standard as everyone else in this nation?

[Tod]

I added a second post apologizing for the crummy formatting (Facebook SUCKS that way) and she then replied

Don't worry about the formatting!! lol...I have actually never heard the word charity come out of his mouth but of course I haven't listened to everything he's ever said. And your right. He did not help anyone on medicaid nor medicare. He wasn't paid enough by the gov. for these patients. It's fact that hard working people in America are poor enough to receive gov. benefits for healthcare and I thank god for that otherwise we would just be another 3rd world country. There are some things that I definitely agree with Ron Paul with, but he has no sense of we as Americans are in this together. He has that I got mine so sorry about your luck. Every humans circumstances are different. Many republicans seem to relate poor to being lazy. That's wrong in so many ways. I'm just tired of hearing this class warfare crap coming out of the mouths of republicans in congress. There is a class warfare going on alright and it's on working class and poor Americans. Our wages have been stagnant for years. Corporations now make each employee do the jobs that took 2 to 3 employees to do in the past. This is going on while those at the top are making more money than they even deserve. If you own the company then you can make all the money you deserve to make. But if your just the CEO and the company isn't doing well enough to give their employees a cost of living raise then they shouldn't get one either. Their way overpaid and don't deserve it unless they are making the company bundles of cash and sharing a little of the wealth with those whom helped earn it. Trickle down economics has been a joke. It's only been trickle up economics and to heck with the rest! Wallstreet just failed and repubs want to keep doing the same thing and it's destroying our economy. What we really need is to have campaign finance reform or nothing will ever change.

and I replied...

At one point, Dr. Paul was working for $3/hr. The reason he did not accept Medicare/Medicaid was not because it didn't pay enough. It was because of his believe that government involvement in healthcare is wrong. Many of his patients were able to pay little or nothing for the care they received. Some were able to, but since Dr. Paul worked at a charity hospital, his salary was paid not by his patients but by the hospital through donations from churches. Government involvement in healthcare has done a lot to put charity hospitals out of work, although a few still exist. You are undoubtedly familiar with the "Shriners Hospitals for Children". I'm not sure where you got your information on Dr. Paul concerning class warfare, but you might want to examine his positions again. Both Bush & Obama gave tons of money to large corporations in the form of bailouts. That money is owed by you and I. That is class warfare. Dr. Paul voted against the bailouts and in fact said that if we *have to give out money*, we would be better off giving it to ordinary citizens like you and I. One of Dr. Paul's big issues is what he calls "corporatism", which as I understand it, is where the government plays favorites with the big corporations, picking winners and losers and writing laws that benefit them. Our new healthcare laws are mostly corporatism (and you thought it was for you and I? Not so.) as is the mis-named "free-trade" agreement NAFTA, which both GHW Bush and Clinton were in favor of and Clinton eventually signed into law. Ross Perot warned of the "giant sucking sound" of good jobs leaving that would result. Dr. Paul voted against NAFTA. Dr. Paul is also very concerned about how the Federal Reserve System manipulates our currency, causing constant inflation, which is a "hidden" tax that makes all of us poorer. This is a pretty complicated subject, but an excellent book on the subject is "The Creature from Jekyll Island". (The Federal Reserve was conceived in secret on Jekyll Island, Georgia in 1910 and was born in 1913). The Federal Reserve System works to impoverish us while giving large banks and the federal government more power, all under the pretext of stabilizing the economy. Dr. Paul has proven that he has an excellent understanding of what is going on in our country and around the world: He predicted the collapse of the Soviet Union several years before it happened, he predicted the collapse of the housing market six years before it happened AND explained why it would happen, he predicted the present rapidly expanding size and scope of government and that it would make both establishment Democrats AND Republicans happy and that at this time there would be a large increase in poverty and dependence on government. And lots of other things that he has warned would come to pass have or are happening. When selecting a candidate, I prefer not to look at whether there is an R or a D after their name and instead look at what they have supported and what they say they support. In the case of the current president, he didn't have much of a record to go on, and a LOT of people were happy to take him at his word about getting the troops home within 16 months. He not only failed to live up to that promise, he has persisted in expanding our overseas involvements and whether you agree with them or not, they are bankrupting us. It is easy to think that it doesn't affect you, but it does. You and I are paying the price right now. Dr. Paul, on the other hand DOES have a long record to examine. He has never voted to raise your taxes, he has never voted to raise congressional pay, he does not participate in the lucrative congressional pension program, he has never taken a government-paid junket, he always returns a portion of his congressional office budget every year. In other words, he has proven his integrity and has had a consistent message for decades. Oh, and by the way, Dr. Paul is opposed to the death penalty (about the only issue that he has changed his mind on over the years, which he did after seeing how many death-row convictions were being overturned due to DNA evidence). Whew! I better stop now, my keyboard might overheat!

[PeacePlan]

Very good job - who knows maybe they will now look a little more into RP and they become supporters..

+1 rep just for your great responses - this is how we win = 1 person converted at a time.

[jdmyprez_deo_vindice]

I added a second post apologizing for the crummy formatting (Facebook SUCKS that way) and she then replied



and I replied...

Excellent response +rep

[dannno]

I added a second post apologizing for the crummy formatting (Facebook SUCKS that way) and she then replied



and I replied...

Amazing, amazing!

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Tod again.

[Tod]

Great response! I would add this. The media has been lying about the entire exchange. Nobody ever applauded at someone being allowed to die. The crowd applauded when Ron Paul endorsed the idea of freedom and responsibility and when Ron Paul said that in his day they never turned anyone away who needed medical care.

See:
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sh...-someone-witho
Exactly how do anchors on MSNBC get away with routinely stating complete falsehoods without any repercussions?

On Tuesday, Chris Matthews wrongly accused Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul of saying during the previous evening's debate he would let a critically ill person die if the patient didn't have health insurance (video follows with transcript and commentary, file photo):

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: I have to say, I’ve never witnessed such a crackle of enthusiasm for executing people as I heard at the Reagan Library debate last week. I recalled it last night when I heard the clap of applause when Ron Paul said he’d let someone die if they failed to pony up for health insurance.

Actually, that's not what Paul said Monday. Here's the entire exchange:

WOLF BLITZER, CNN: Before I get to Michele Bachmann, I want to just -- you're a physician, Ron Paul, so you're a doctor. You know something about this subject. Let me ask you this hypothetical question.

A healthy 30-year-old young man has a good job, makes a good living, but decides, you know what? I'm not going to spend $200 or $300 a month for health insurance because I'm healthy, I don't need it. But something terrible happens, all of a sudden he needs it.

Who's going to pay if he goes into a coma, for example? Who pays for that?

CONGRESSMAN RON PAUL (R-TEXAS): Well, in a society that you accept welfarism and socialism, he expects the government to take care of him.

BLITZER: Well, what do you want?

PAUL: But what he should do is whatever he wants to do, and assume responsibility for himself. My advice to him would have a major medical policy, but not be forced --

BLITZER: But he doesn't have that. He doesn't have it, and he needs intensive care for six months. Who pays?

PAUL: That's what freedom is all about, taking your own risks. This whole idea that you have to prepare and take care of everybody --

(APPLAUSE)

BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

PAUL: No.

That bears repeating:

BLITZER: But Congressman, are you saying that society should just let him die?

PAUL: No.

What did Matthews claim?

"Ron Paul said he’d let someone die if they failed to pony up for health insurance."

That's not what Paul said, is it? For the record, here's the rest of the Congressman's answer:

PAUL: I practiced medicine before we had Medicaid, in the early 1960s, when I got out of medical school. I practiced at Santa Rosa Hospital in San Antonio, and the churches took care of them. We never turned anybody away from the hospitals.

(APPLAUSE)

PAUL: And we've given up on this whole concept that we might take care of ourselves and assume responsibility for ourselves. Our neighbors, our friends, our churches would do it. This whole idea, that's the reason the cost is so high.

The cost is so high because they dump it on the government, it becomes a bureaucracy. It becomes special interests. It kowtows to the insurance companies and the drug companies, and then on top of that, you have the inflation. The inflation devalues the dollar, we have lack of competition.

There's no competition in medicine. Everybody is protected by licensing. And we should actually legalize alternative health care, allow people to practice what they want.

Exactly how does Matthews and others on his so-called "news" network continue to get away with such blatant misrepresentations?

As I've said many times, in any other industry in our country, a person would be suspended or fired for such dishonestly or negligence.

Why are journalists not held to the same professional standard as everyone else in this nation?

Thanks! I gave her that link!

[jmdrake]

Thanks! I gave her that link!

You're welcome. And you've been doing a great job yourself! You do Ron Paul proud.

One thing just hit me. When Ron Paul was talking about "risk" he was talking about financial risk and not life and death risk. Blitzer asked "who pays?" and Ron said "That's what freedom is all about. Taking your own risks." When Blitzer asked "are you saying society should let the man die?" Ron clearly said "no".

The left is conflating being stuck with an expensive medical bill to "being allowed to die". I've heard people who support government healthcare talk about how "unfortunate it is that people go bankrupt because of healthcare". Well...isn't it unfortunate to go bankrupt because of anything? Does that mean people shouldn't be allowed to take risks on the stock market because they might go bankrupt? Of course someone under perpetual debt isn't a good thing. Such a person is likely to give up being productive at all. That's why at some point we allow people to write off debt and start over. Death also extinguishes debt as it only attaches to the estate and not to the descendants of the person. But the government can't go bankrupt. It's written into the 14th amendment. We we die our share of the federal debt is not extinguished but is instead passed on to our descendants as long as they choose to remain U.S. citizens.

[Danke]

Nice job Tod!

[Tod]

Further updates after my previous looooonnnng post and the link about letting the young man die:

She wrote back with this:

Well Tod. I have to agree with the majority of what your saying. Well actuallly about all of it. I know that Dr. Paul did not agree with the applause of the audience and shame on them. Chris Matthews was wrong on this. Also wasn't aware of Dr. Pauls charity work. Thank god for charity. As my husband and I have said, we agree with the majority of what Dr. Paul represents. He is the most sane politician the republicans have running for the office as of now. I just don't agree that the government has absolutely no use in this country. You can't trust corporations and their greed. As for the healthcare issue. I believe our system is horrible for everyone (but the richest among us). We are the only country that a citizen can go bankrupt by getting a serious illness. Even with an insurance policy. We need an overhaul on our healthcare system as the greed is killing us. Literally! I'm glad to hear that you are not worried about an R or D but with todays republican party I could never vote for one. I do believe in regulations as I do not want to breathe crappy air, drink deadly water or eat tainted food. Look what happened on wallstreet due to limited regulation and complete incompetence actually on the regulators side. Of course common sense will tell us that some regulations are just rediculous. It seems that they are trying to turn us into a 3rd. world nation by lowering our wages, cutting our benefits and working us to death. We cannot compete with third world labor. Without a strong middle class we cannot have a strong nation. I don't mind paying my share of taxes because this is what our country was founded on, but I want something in return for this. Well, like you said I don't want to burnout my keyboard either!! lol......nice talking politics with you. I'm a political junkie too. Today I am pretty much brain dead though as I am not feeling my best!!! lol....take care

She doesn't seem to be able to get past the fact that he has an R behind his name.

[Tod]

How would you address her concerns about the environment? Bear in mind that we are in Ohio, home to the famous Cuyahoga River that actually caught fire in 1969 because of all the pollution (oil and other chemicals floating on it) from the heavy industry that lined its banks at the time.

She is absolutely right about not being able to trust corporations; they will not police themselves, I've seen first hand what they will do given the chance.

[Ronulus]

Thats where the governments role of protecting and enforcing property rights comes in.

[dannno]

First, explain to her that Ron Paul does not usually have special interest lobbyists from corporations visiting his congressional office in D.C. because they are too busy collecting special favors from the other Republican and Democratic politicians.

Ask her where she gets the idea that regulations have been protecting the environment and protecting us from big corporations when they are the ones who write the regulations in the first place?

Then explain that the big media companies are owned and funded by these same large corporations and they are clearly on a pro-regulation agenda to help ensure that they can continue to pass legislation in the name of protecting the consumer that ultimate protects the big corporations.

You might explain the concept of how "The Patriot Act" is just as unpatriotic as something like Cap and Trade that would actually allow corporations to pollute toxic chemicals as long as they pay extra (not to mention most large corporations get government subsidies that can pay these fees, anyway)


Environment: Ron Paul believes that our government dropped the ball on environmentalism during the Industrial Revolution. When companies polluted in the early days of the Industrial Revolution they found that they had to compensate the property owners whose property or resources were damaged and that it was very expensive for them. Big industry was tired of paying out to compensate property owners so they went to government and started passing regulations that allowed them to pollute other people's property. Environmental regulation has resulted in massive amounts of pollution. Ron Paul believes in going back to using property rights to restrict others from polluting our air, land and water.


Health care: She is absolutely right that our health care system is so screwed up. The problem with our health care system is that it is too expensive. The reason it is expensive is because everybody either has insurance through their corporate employer or through the government. Back in the 70s, the government gave corporations a big tax incentive to provide health care to their employees but they didn't give people a tax incentive to pay for their own health insurance. This led to everybody going to corporations for significantly reduced health care insurance. However, the way corporate insurance works is that everybody is on the same plan and everybody is fully insured. Nobody has to pay for their health care, so the prices keep going up. The insurance companies have no incentive to keep prices down, they simply pay out more and then raise their rates the following year.

If people were able to receive the same tax breaks buying their own insurance, many young and healthy individuals would buy much cheaper insurance that only covered catastrophic illnesses. Their day to day health care needs could be paid for out of pocket. This alone would cause a true market for health services to form where prices would come down drastically as people began to take into account the cost of their health services rather than just the quality, or worse, being told by your insurance company exactly who you are to see.

[dannno]

http://ronpaulforcongress.com/html/environment.html

ISSUE - Environment

“I believe that a lack of respect for property rights has led to many [environmental] problems.”


The federal government has proven itself untrustworthy with environmental policy by facilitating polluters, subsidizing logging in the National Forests, and instituting one-size-fits-all approaches that too often discriminate against those they are intended to help.

The key to sound environmental policy is respect for private property rights. The strict enforcement of property rights corrects environmental wrongs while increasing the cost of polluting.

In a free market, no one is allowed to pollute his neighbor's land, air, or water. If your property is being damaged, you have every right to sue the polluter, and government should protect that right. After paying damages, the polluter's production and sale costs rise, making it unprofitable to continue doing business the same way. Currently, preemptive regulations and pay-to-pollute schemes favor those wealthy enough to perform the regulatory tap dance, while those who own the polluted land rarely receive a quick or just resolution to their problems.

In Congress, I have followed a constitutional approach to environmental action:

I consistently vote against using tax dollars to subsidize logging in National Forests.
I am a co-sponsor of legislation designed to encourage the development of alternative and sustainable energy. H.R. 550 extends the investment tax credit to solar energy property and qualified fuel cell property, and H.R. 1772 provides tax credits for the installation of wind energy property.
Taxpayers for Common Sense named me a "Treasury Guardian" for my work against environmentally-harmful government spending and corporate welfare.
I am a member of the Congressional Green Scissors Coalition, a bipartisan caucus devoted to ending taxpayer subsidies of projects that harm the environment for the benefit of special interests.

Individuals, businesses, localities, and states must be free to negotiate environmental standards. Those who depend on the land for their health and livelihood have the greatest incentive to be responsible stewards.

[Tod]

http://ronpaulforcongress.com/html/environment.html

It sounds as though the only solution would be for someone to sue the offending company, but how would that work when the company can afford attorneys out the wazoo while an individual usually couldn't swing an attorney for very long at all. I used to work in Cleveland and at the time one of our customers was the infamous Master Metals, a lead smelting company that left an environmental mess and whose president ended up serving some time in prison for falsifying employee records about blood lead levels. They had attorneys on staff battling the EPA constantly so they could stay open, but eventually they were forced to close. ( http://www.americanrecycler.com/aug03/master.html ) There are so many sites that have been contaminated where the polluter has long since gone out of business. Another example is how GE was dumping PCBs into the Hudson River for DECADES. Cleanup was estimated at close to a half a billion dollars. With that kind of money at stake, only the government would have pockets deep enough to win that fight, it seems to me.

How do you propose to level the playing field when it comes to such an imbalance of resources, particularly when the nearby neighbors may be employees and fear of job loss stifles corrective action?

[Simple]

How would you address her concerns about the environment? Bear in mind that we are in Ohio, home to the famous Cuyahoga River that actually caught fire in 1969 because of all the pollution (oil and other chemicals floating on it) from the heavy industry that lined its banks at the time.

She is absolutely right about not being able to trust corporations; they will not police themselves, I've seen first hand what they will do given the chance.

Corporatism I feel is going to be a big issue because it reaches across party lines and as far as I've seen Ron Paul is the only one addressing the issue. First off we want free markets because free markets allow for a better standard of living even for the poorest in society. If we look at the World's most free economies: Singapore or Hong Kong, their energy use per capita which is a good approximation for a standard of living, are leaps and bounds beyond any other country. Even though it is counter-intuitive that when people do less for each other in the form of social welfare in a society, the poor actually benefit more. When we have government programs that tax and spend to help the poor first we need to build a building to house the government workers, hire a bureaucrat to administer it, then hire a staff to work for the bureaucrat, and then use what money is left to actually help the poor. As we can see using this simplistic model is that waste is built into government thus logically even if there was less taken in as charitable donations compared to taxation, because the charitable foundations are more efficient than government the poor actually receive more. If you were hit be a natural disaster, who would you want to see, the red cross or fema?

Getting back to corporatism,...as long as we have planners in all the departments of our government who effectively chose winners and losers, the special interests will exist. This creates the revolving door between our different government agencies and the industries they are supposed to be regulating. Only by shrinking the size and scope of the federal government can we break the unholy alliance between government and special (corporate) interests. Anonymous is protesting campaign finance which is understandable after the Supreme Court's ruling on Citizens United, but that alone will not address the issue. Free markets are proven to be more efficient than central control, but we can only have free markets if we are ready to assume responsibility. The question you need to ask yourself is this: if I didn't have to pay federal income taxes and I know that a portion of my tax dollars used to go to social welfare, would I take responsibility and donate to the local food bank or try to help someone in need? Only if we can say yes to that question can we advance society.

Sorry for the rant, that one's going on my poor ignored blog =)

[Jandrsn21]

That response was brilliant, something tells me you sent that guy back to the hole he crawled out from!

[Anti Federalist]

How would you address her concerns about the environment? Bear in mind that we are in Ohio, home to the famous Cuyahoga River that actually caught fire in 1969 because of all the pollution (oil and other chemicals floating on it) from the heavy industry that lined its banks at the time.

She is absolutely right about not being able to trust corporations; they will not police themselves, I've seen first hand what they will do given the chance.

Making stuff makes a mess.

Better to do it here, and provide jobs, income, products and infrastructure that any independent nation needs, and not foist it off on China or third world.

That way it can be kept under better control.

That would also address her concerns about losing middle class jobs and income.

Ron Paul's economic policies would encourage this.

[jmdrake]

Good question. The thing to realize is that the field is never level even in a regulatory state. Government regulators leave for big jobs in industry. Then they lobby their former colleagues. Worse lobbiests help write the initial legislation. Remember the lead paint toy scare? Congress passed a law requiring lead paint tests done on all toys. Mom and pop toy manufacturers cried foul, pointing out that you can't even buy lead paint in the U.S. They tried to to get an exemption but were denied. You know who got the exemption? Mattel! That's right. The same large megacorp that was responsible for importing the lead paint tainted toys from China in the first place!

See: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/aug...ss/fi-mattel28
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/2...testing-again/
http://www.ethicsoup.com/2009/09/mat...y-testing.html

By contrast you have a better shot in court. You can always find a lawyer to take a case on contingency if the facts are strong enough and there's enough money involved. (In you can't then PM me and I'll take the case. ) And at the end of the day the jury is made up of normal people who aren't looking for campaign contributions like congress or a cushy lobbiest job like your typical fed regulator

It sounds as though the only solution would be for someone to sue the offending company, but how would that work when the company can afford attorneys out the wazoo while an individual usually couldn't swing an attorney for very long at all. I used to work in Cleveland and at the time one of our customers was the infamous Master Metals, a lead smelting company that left an environmental mess and whose president ended up serving some time in prison for falsifying employee records about blood lead levels. They had attorneys on staff battling the EPA constantly so they could stay open, but eventually they were forced to close. ( http://www.americanrecycler.com/aug03/master.html ) There are so many sites that have been contaminated where the polluter has long since gone out of business. Another example is how GE was dumping PCBs into the Hudson River for DECADES. Cleanup was estimated at close to a half a billion dollars. With that kind of money at stake, only the government would have pockets deep enough to win that fight, it seems to me.

How do you propose to level the playing field when it comes to such an imbalance of resources, particularly when the nearby neighbors may be employees and fear of job loss stifles corrective action?