These are the only senators with any sort of backbone.
Sen. Thomas Harkin (D-IA)

Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)

Sen. Thomas Coburn (R-OK)

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR)

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR)

Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)

Sen. Bernard Sanders (I-VT)

Say GOODBYE to your rights!
Piggy backing a provision like the one that allows the military to detain Citizens is FUCKING STUPID, I don't give a shit how you cut it. YOU have to be an absolute goddamn retard to do this, EVERY single politician that voted for this trash to be implemented should be fucking fired hog tied and beat. GODDAMMIT everyone needs to wake the fuck up!

You see Democrat Ron Wyden is going to team with Senator Harkin and some Republican to reframe Social Medical Care. He isn't fucking around and they will probably rewrite the Oboma Bill to be more in line with common sense access to care. I said care, not free emergency room visits for the common cold and or busting open your knee and grade A free service at a full fledged Cat IV Hospital at the cost of tax payers and medical insurance payers.

You are going to see the Govt and the Medical Industry team up to invest billions in localized community medical centers that will provide low cost common care. The other part of this Bill will re-align Medicare and Medicade for those making more then 80k annually while retired. What they are going to give back to those people who will be receiving less subsidization from MnM will be the ability to write more medical expense off on there taxes. The third prong of this is where those of us born since 1968 are going to get fucking rail roaded. Someone has too, and its going to be the children of the baby boomers and the following generation. Our age for entitlement is going to get pushed backed significantly probably to the 67 - 70 years old range.

The last part of this is removal of SS payments to those people who make over 250k a year before drawing SS payments. I am sorry, I don't care how much you paid into the system, if you are clocking over 250k a year pre-tax and not working anymore then you don't need the Governments 20-30k a year in SS payments. They would still get access to the higher earning bracket version of MnM, but there SS payments would be $0.

We should provide free to low-cost access to common medical care and preventative services. What shouldn't be free is equal access for no cost to top tier pay services at the expense of tax payers and medical insurance payers. Even in Little Beruit, aka Portland, the most liberal of hospitals, the Sisters of Providence, have drawn the line to free no pay access to there top tier Cat IV and V Hospital. They started building Community medical centers and turning away non-emergency ....uh...lets just not go there about illegal or legal... patients.

Say it with me, about fucking time.

I see _a lot_ of tea party names on the "yes" list.

@ Tasorin, chances of anything positive coming from the right are next to nill. Just wait and see this gutted and turned into another tax brake for the rich bill.

The Paul family = only hope for conservative politics.

The list is accurate. and gives a flyin fuck about liberty? Ron Paul for pres, Rand Paul for KY Senate if you live in KY, donate if you dont.

Campaign for Liberty http://www.campaignforliberty.org/

Do you give a shit? If yes, 10$ or stfu

C4L needs help from all of us who give a shit. Thats the bottom line.

I see a lot of democrats and liberals as well. Aren't they all about rights? I'm glad my Senator Tom Coburn had enough sense not to vote for this HORSE SHIT!

The hell with $10, I'm giving as much as I can.

Funny, at the same time your oppose social programs. Like giving money to the poor, old and sick. I am sure you see your money better spent on attack adds on TV.

You're right I hate them all, as well as puppies. They all should just go away and die!


See I can say absurd bullshit as well.

Your comments would make more sense if you had even the slightest clue as to wtf you were talking about.

Sorry for not towing your conservative line, but someone has to act in a socially responsible way or the whole country will descend into massive rioting and anarchy.

When your neighbor is eating your children right in front of your eyes, you will have nobody but yourself to blame.

Your argument is based on a false premise Sinij. The disagreement you and I have is that you think the government should confiscate from folks to give to others while I think I should be allowed to give to the folks I choose on my own. In my dynamic society doesn't devolve because my view depends on people being locally socially responsible. For proof that my idea works you need only look at our history before 1960. Communities took care of their own and choosing not to work carried a negative stigma while inability to work garnered sympathy and help from your neighbors. Surely you don't believe that a centralized government hundreds or thousands of miles away can better decide how to allocate money to help your neighbors than you can, living just down the street from them.

As I see it, what it really boils down to is folks like you don't want to expend the time and effort it takes to educate yourself about the needs of those around you, so you advocate for the confiscation of goods from everyone and the government dole so that you can feel good about yourself and preach to others about how they aren't doing enough, as though you paying taxes is all the charity you ever need participate in. Perhaps you can sleep at night secure in the thought that your "charity" is simply propagating a new slave class, but I cannot, and I believe that the way to free people from the bonds of dependency is to allow/force them to fend for themselves with the support of their local community. If you don't believe that will happen then that is another fundamental difference between you and me. I believe that most people are innately good and will choose to help their neighbors, while you seem to believe that people are evil and will only do good when forced.

No need to look here, move along folks! Just more absurd bullshit being spewed!

Please specify "from" and "until" range when "locally social responsible" was practiced on a wide scale. Usually "before 1960" refers to Crow Law, but I am giving you benefit of the doubt here.

Has nothing to do with conservative. You just plainly do not know what you are even talking about. Honestly I am surprised you made the comments you did here, as at times you seem to make an effort to have a clue.

I really dont even know where to begin, or understand why you even bother to post here when you make no effort to even understand the conversation. Having different thoughts is one thing, not even bothering to follow the subject and spouting random moralistic sounding lines at people is something altogether different.

Attack ads? Heh. Socially responsible? You come across as a very socially irresponsible person to be quite honest. *scratches head , and moves on *

From the start of our nation. Until the institution of the welfare state.

You were right Wolf. He's about to call me a racist.

You are confusing lack of understanding with open contempt for a number of conservative views.

As to why I post here, that is fairly complex psychological question that cannot be easily answered. I can tell you what are NOT reasons I post here.

I am not posting here to try to convert you to my point of view, you are entitled to your opinions. I am no longer trying to get KGB conservatives to acknowledge my point of view, you are too indoctrinated to even entertain that other points of view could be valid, least that yours might be flawed in some way. I am not trying to enrage or humiliate my opponents, while I frequently mock it is to demonstrate the point by highlighting grotesqueness of your beliefs.

In that case your position is nothing by revisionist bullshit. Lets look at your social responsibility - Jim Crow Laws, McCarthyism, Smith Act and various workers rights riots, Blair Mountain and miners rights... I got to 1920s, do I need to go on, because it gets worse.

See, what confuses me.... is I thought that you yourself were against things like the NDAA. Maybe I was wrong.

I did not realize that fighting for civil liberties was something you considered grotesque. If that is the case, then I guess I can see why you would start throwing insults at people who were vehement about fighting for civil liberties. I had figured that you somehow were just not cognizant that the conversation was on civil liberties and not economics.

There are, actually, a good amount of liberals who care about civil liberties whether you like it or not though. So, your ranting and the hate directed at me on the subject still provides a lot of illumination as to how much thought you put into things.

But, logical consistency has never seemed to be your forte and I realize that.

This is the problem. You equate big government laws with local social responsibility. Those are not the same thing.

You got enough straw going on there to get an army going, less one strawman. What I find grotesque is unwillingness to support any and all social programs, yet willingness to extensively donate to support political campaigns based on one issue. This isn't question of a wrong cause, but question of misplaced priorities.

As to your attempted "civil liberties" smear - lol @ you.

You said: "In my dynamic society doesn't devolve because my view depends on people being locally socially responsible. For proof that my idea works you need only look at our history before 1960."

I provided tons of historical examples "before 1960" where people are NOT acting in locally socially responsible way.

Your attempt at trolling is pretty sad.

Pretty sure I stated I believe in social programs to an extent. Just not to the extent YOU want them. I don't call that "UNWILLING" to support social programs. I call that tough love, because once you give people everything they need. They will simply make a career of living off the Government (TAX PAYERS)

Also I donate MY money that I make however the fuck I want. That's the way it should be. Because I have FUCKING TAXES taken out of my check each week that already donate's my money before I even get to see it. So much for being unwilling to donate to social programs aye!

I don' think this is going anywhere...

For the record:

1. National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) provisions on detention are appalling and anyone caught voting for it should be tossed out of the office once and for all.

2. Donating to defeat NDAA is a good cause

3. Generally speaking, social issues should be prioritized over political issues, but bringing this point in context of 1. and 2. set argument down the wrong path.

You can always find some people who are not responsible, that's why the rest of us have to be. Most people though, given the opportunity will help their neighbors in need.