GOP Debate

They're not fighting terrorism? They're practically on the front lines. That's WHY they have the wall in the first place.

 

Building a security fence along our border would help to alleviate a lot of the economic pressure on our government. The cost of servicing illegal aliens is immense. But your point is well taken, which is why I would advocate for several measures to (a) balance our budget and (b) get the economy back on track. For me, securing the border wouldn't occur in isolation but as part of a broader socioeconomic reformation.

The volume of people trying to get in is irrelevant. A wall doesn't care if there is one person trying to circumvent it or a thousand - the principle remains the same.

 

It does if you're building it

 

Older posts are no longer available.

 

You should go watch the movie "Giant" with Jimmy Dean. There are wildfires all over Texas in that movie. It was made a very long time ago. Probably before you were born. It's gritty, dusty and dry all over the place.

Texas hasn't changed a bit.

 

It's the people running the ponzi scheme that are the crooks, skippy. Grandma is just another victim. Trying to twist Perry's words will get your ******* ass nothing here.

 

I label you a liberal because you don't think Palin could win, because you bought into the liberal presses version of her. You would have bought their version of Reagan too.

 

I grew up here in Texas.its always been hot and we have always had these droughts and fires.My grandfather(who grew up also) will tell you the same.So please take that Global Warming B.S. elsewhere.If it was Global Warming,then why isnt the entire world on fire right now,genius?
Or did Global Warming just decide to pick Texas because it hates Rick Perry?Californias on fire,is that Global Warming?Las Vegas sometimes has 120 F days in the summer,is that Global Warming?What about Phoenix?Global Warming?What about the NorthEast that was not too long ago sweltering in heat ,but is now getting hammered with rain,Global Warming also?San Diego had a trace of snow last winter,so did Vegas,Global Warming?
dur dur

 

Thats James Dean,Carl,not the sausage guy
,that is an old movie,very good movie.
Yeah,1956,wow,I guess that (*)(*)(*)(*) Global Warming was with us back then.

 

Yep, That thing was made the year I was born.

 

No matter what your opinion on global warming may be you can't possibly think there is no consequence to taking all this oil, coal, and gas from inside the earth burning it for the power and then releasing the waste into the atmosphere?

 

Countries that produce wealth are more likely to clean up their messes than countries which don't. It all depends on who owns the property.

So no I don't really think there is a big consequence.

 

Only if that were true. Don't be naive, corporations no matter how wealthy will only spend as much as they have to cleaning up the environment. Just ask BP about that.

 

Great Britain is a share holder in the company and is still Government managed to a certain extent. So yeah you don't really know what you're saying.

 

Hmm, I really don't know what that means. I am a shareholder of Exxon Mobile and I don't believe they would do anything to protect the environment. So what exactly does that mean that I might be a shareholder? And last I checked, they are a publically traded company, so how exactly are they Government managed?

 

So as a shareholder you do know that you have a stake or a share in Exxon Mobile. In other words, you own part of the company. That is pretty much what I mean.

As for government management, it manages the exploration of oil and drilling of BP. Also the US government owns the property which the oil is located. Also, to protect drilling industry who weren't as big as BP the Government capped economic damages of that kind of spill at just $75 million dollars. Which was way too small and encouraged risky behavior.

I don't think you got the original point. Private Business owners has an incentive to keep their own property clean. They're not going to trash their own property. That will hurt the bottom line. If they trash your own property, they know they will have to deal will lawsuits. There are only a few occasions where they will have to dump on their own property.

Everything that happened with the BP spill was just government trashing government property.

 

There are levels of enviromental protection the oil companies are willing to accept and provide, that much I will give you. But to think they give a rats butt about how poisons leaked into the ground or atmosphere affects other communities they might not own for years to come, you are sadly mistaken. I got it, why don't we just give all the land in the US to private corporations so they won't ever destroy it.

Might I remind you that companies once hid the affects of asbestos in their research publications. Coal Ash is dumped into wet ponds that forces people to leave their communities when the gray residue seeps into their water supply. While I don't believe corporations are out to get us. I certainly don't believe they care about us. And profit is the number one concern. Anything else is a distant second.

 

We do. Private companies dump toxic stuff on their own land so they won't have to dump it anywhere else. Sure there are bad seeds out there but don't you think its bad to assume all companies like that? If you want repeat business poisoning your consumers wouldn't be the best way to get it.

Mostly all companies have good intentions. Believe it or not they care about their consumers, or else they wouldn't work so hard for their business.

And as for profits, they aren't necessarily a bad thing. As a matter of fact they aren't.

 

See reference to asbestos and cigarette companies. Puhlease. Bad seeds? There is a distinct difference between wanting to harm consumers and actually looking out for them. No, I don't believe by in large corporations want to harm people, but if it is between 10% of the people being affected and profits, I guarantee they will lean toward the latter.

Competing for business has nothing to do with good intentions. Drug dealers like to keep their customers happy while selling them poisons. LOL.

No, they aren't. I never said they were. But not when they trump safety (as in the case of BP and the mining accident in WV). Profits are good, they are great, but 1 life is more important. Especially if it's YOURS!

 

So do you have any proof that these companies are intentionally out to harm consumers? I don't think you do.

As for cigarette companies. Whether or not people choose to use them is a personal matter. No one put a gun to anyone's head and forced them to buy them.

That's a dumb strawman argument and again that relates to cigarettes. Whether or not someone chooses to buy it is a personal decision. In my profession I can easily say that Red Meat is a way of supermarkets selling poison to consumers. Whether or not they choose to purchase the product is their decision. No one is putting a knife to their throat and making them purchase anything.

No one says that life is more important that profits. It's particular hard to say that life is more important than profits as well. That would be like saying the needs of the people are more important than profits, which is not necessarily the case.

 

If it is so solvent then why did Obama lie and say check may not go out ?
I asked this before and no one has ever answered ?

Bush is no longer President

You can do much better in debates , you are a smart one , why waste it on dribble?

So didn't Obama , again please explain why he would say checks for SS were not going out?

 

Do you read?

Do you need proof of this? I already told you. Companies purposely hid their findings from cigarettes and asbestos. Companies that continue to dump coal ash deny it causes health problems. Do you want more examples?

LOL, so now there are justifications as to them killing their customers?

Actually it is not a strawman. Maybe you need to understand what strawman is. Drug dealers is exactly like cigarette companies. You just created a strawman by comparing cigarette companies to supermarkets selling meat? Classic.

Thanks for proving my point. If it were YOUR life, you would certainly feel different. That's the problem with the conservative mantra. It's all good as long as YOU aren't the one that has to suffer.

 

Yes I do read.

Yes the fact that the findings from cigarettes and asbestos weren't on the records is evident that someone neglected to put it in. I ask you do you have any proof that it was intentionally left out.

Again, did anyone force these addicts to buy the drugs? No one buys drugs without knowing the risk.

When you create an argument for the opposition that the opposition didn't create themselves, that's a straw man. You did it twice.

And again, you used the term straw man incorrectly. I said I can easily compare the selling of red meat as poison similar to drugs in my profession. I never made such comparison so you just really need to pay attention.

And as for the Red Meat comparison. It's bad for you. Most people know this. As a fitness trainer I never recommend it, but if people want it people are going to buy it. No one is forcing people to buy things which are unhealthy for them.

Not really. I understand how profits work. The "needs" of the people is a relative concept. There is no way to know what everyone wants at any given time in an entire economy. That's what profits are for. Profits give an incentive to serve your fellow man through voluntary transactions. Profits prevent a mis-allocation of resources in the economy. Only with profits in the free market can you help other individuals achieve their person wants and needs without actually having to meet them in the first place.

If you don't understand profits, you don't understand how businesses work. They work for the benefit of the economy, not the detriment.

 

Truthfully, that was to scare people. A tactic used by every politician by the way. But let me explain it to you this way. Even though the SS trust fund has $2 trillion in it, it's not like that is a physical account with that much money sitting in it that the president writes checks from (like our own bank accounts). This money is in the form of treasury bonds and US securities and so much of that depends on how well our economy does. The real problem is that money collected from Social Security does not go directly into trust fund, it is used by the government - the US treasury. The real problem is that no one ever wants to tap into the $2 trillion in reserves and last year the program actually paid out more than it took in. Usually the interest on the trust fund will cover any differences and the projections are that in about 15 years the interest won't be enough to cover the difference. So solvent is a relevant term and unfortunately the government can't think in terms of years but instead decades or more.

I agree, but the fact is that he hurt this country more than we knew in 2008 and probably more than we think even now. While I am tired of hearing that from every Democrat out there, his policies are still hurting this country today and so I tolerate it.

True, but weren't the same jokes made about Biden?

Because it isn't like checks are written straight out of a SS trust fund account. This isn't your personal finances we are talking about. It is a little more complicated than that. The US treasury decides who gets paid and while the checks would have probably still been paid, there was really no guarantee.

 

Ok, do you comprehend what you read?

Seriously? You know as well as I do that anyone with Google and half a brain can find this out.

But that isn't the point nor was it my or your original argument. The argument was whether companies do or don't put profits over environmental or health of people. The answer is cleary YES they do!

That is not true. What I did was called giving an example.

LOL, then why even bring it up. This is starting to sound like a discussion with my 7 year old.

Hmm, medical data does not back this up. Yes, while red meat is high in saturated fat, it (red meat) is not directly linked to heart disease any more than fish with high saturated fat. The consensus at this point is anything in moderation. I don't think the same goes for cigarettes or toxic waste.

First off, we don't have a free market. Secondly I never said profits were bad. To think so would be naive. Let me say this slowly. Profits are a good thing until it is put before the welfare of even a single person.

Thanks for clearing that up. But I run my own business and have done so for over 10 years now. I think I know how profits work.