Aetna to pull out of ObamaCare ENTIRELY by 2018

POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Tuesday, September 30, 2025 11:58
VIEWED: 9280
PAGE 7 of 8

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
For sure people are capable of that kind of thinking.

---

I think you give the people too much credit.

What are you going to do though? I voted for Trump, not only to keep Hillary out, but because I believed that things were going to get better and we'd be pulling out of wars we have no business in, yet here we are continuing what has become our norm since 2001.

Voting means nothing. Not when the two parties in control are really just flip sides of the same coin.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6stringJoker:
I think you give the people too much credit.

---

'People' have done better elsewhere. 'People' are capable of better.

Quote:

---

What are you going to do though? I voted for Trump, not only to keep Hillary out, but because I believed that things were going to get better and we'd be pulling out of wars we have no business in, yet here we are continuing what has become our norm since 2001.
Voting means nothing. Not when the two parties in control are really just flip sides of the same coin.

---

Well then, vote for someone else. If you settle for empty words over and over, it only makes you a fool.

---

---

---

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

lol

how many times have you been happy with a politician you've voted for?

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Waxman? Really happy! Boxer? Tolerably happy. But I never vote for Dianne Feinstein, even though she's a democrat. Jerry Brown? Terrific! Too bad he'll term-out. I need to see what my choices are next time around.

But yanno, six? You seem to think that voting is like dying. You do it once, and, if you're lucky, you go to heaven forever and ever, amen. Voting is more like doing dishes. You have to keep at it.

---

---

---

Originally posted by G:
"I coined the slogan "We Suck!"© many years ago."
G is an avowed Putin-loving, pro-Russian, anti-American troll.

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I didn't say I don't vote. I still do. I even vote in mid-terms. I actually feel that voting local is much more worthwhile, and the higher level the vote is the less powerful that vote is.

I kind of look at it like Pascal's Wager, but politics. I think I'll call it Jack's Wager. There's no harm in actually voting... just in case.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

I'm not saying that we have zero power. I'm just saying that the way things are now nobody takes the possibility of that power seriously ...- SIX

Then they need to be educated.- KIKI

---

Here's the crux of the problem.

Who is going the educate people about their options? The mainstream press? Oh, wait ... they're corporately-owned and depend on corporate advertising (which itself is a tool to turn people into non-thinkers.)

Mainstream politicians? They're the LAST people who want change.

Third-party politicians? Oh dear. THEY have to advertise their policies because the government has adopted a corporate-friendly policy that paid-for speech counts as "free speech".

Corporations? 'nuff said.

Schools? THEY'RE focused on educating students to be able to fit themselves into our corporate culture, as opposed to being independent thinkers.

Although people may need to be educated about their options, nobody in power has an interest in doing so, and those who are interested in doing so aren't in power.

-----

It seems to me that over thousands of millenia, concentrations of people have fostered parasites (not just the biological kind, the human kind too). And some of these parasites have been especially good at vaulting a little bit of excess power into MORE power, and that this progresses until everything in a society ... its religion, its ethics, its education, its production, and even its view of what is real and not real... becomes wrapped up around promoting the interests of the parastical few, until the parasitism becomes SO egregious (or a changed environment puts an extra stress on society) that revolution ensues.

And then, it starts all over again.


The FF instituted a process whereby the government could evolve gradually, instead of society erupting in revolution. This is an important development: There IS power in voting. However, even the FF realized democracy's fragility. When asked “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” Various Founding Fathers spoke about the importance of a generally-educated public as the foundation of a successful republic.

But it took probably less than 100 years for a cabal of wealthy people (less time in the South)... plus a flux of mostly-uneducated immigrants who were ready to be exploited ... for the power of the vote to be completely diminished.





-----------

"Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor"- William Blake
THUGR, JONESING FOR WWIII
All those guns 1kiki, are pointed towards your beloved Russia. All those cyber capabilities, pointed right at Russia. Thanks Putin, and get ready to duck.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
For those confused about modern, current references to readily understood analogies, Communists and Socialists either outlaw religion or decree only one - there is no choice or FREEDOM. Same for Corporations - even in Japan Corporations don't really compete with each other, they all work for the nation, and Russia, N. Korea, Vietnam, China, Cuba are far worse.

---

Ok, so for you choice= freedom. And that includes choice between religions or between corporations.

Quote:

---

There seems to be some missing component in your understanding, which may reveal why others who are taught as you were cannot comprehend the Freedom of Religion.
... a reasonable POV because at the time absolute monarchies were the form of government - SIGNY
OK.-JSF
...the churches were very powerful.- SIGNY
Really? Like how the Church of Rome (The Papists) was able to reign throughout the British Empire? And English subjects were free to associate with the Roman Church of Christianity (post-HenryVIII)?- JSF

---

[SNIP!]

JS- I said churches (plural) not Church (singular). During the Middle Ages in Europe, when "governments" were mostly reduced to villages and cities, it was only THE Church which maintained a common language (Latin) and common heritage. Once the various secular powers began to re-consolidate, they initially depended on the Holy Roman Church's blessing for legitimacy. But once monarchies wealthy enough to exist on their own developed and the printing press came into being, THE Church was openly challenged. It's not coincidence that the printing press (1440), Martin Luther (1483-1546) and King Henry VII (1491- 1597) all occurred more or less at the same time. The FF were highly aware of the terrible religious wars that ravaged Europe once the power of THE Church fell.

=====

Quote:

---

It looks like you have proven my point.Compare the following 2 statements, both from you: - JSF

Quote:

---

But very little discussion about the relationship of people and corporations (the FF were mostly against corporations)

As far as I know, nothing like them exists today, just as the modern corporation didn't back then.

---

---

The view of the FF on business and corporations was complex. Some of the FF were very successful businessmen, merchants, or plantation-owners.

As I mentioned before, they rebelled against the East India Company, which was a Crown Corporation and therefore a foreign monopoly, so they were pretty nationalistic about business ownership.

In general, they do seem to be "for" family-owned or privately/ individually -owned businesses because they equated prosperity with individual striving.

"Government is instituted to protect property of every sort; as well that which lies in the various rights of individuals, as that which the term particularly expresses. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own." – James Madison

But when it comes to "corporations", "banks", and "federal borrowing" they had a diversity of opinions.

Insofar as "corporations" were concerned, they were originally strictly limited ...

Quote:

---

After the nation’s founding, corporations were granted charters by the state as they are today. Unlike today, however, corporations were only permitted to exist 20 or 30 years and could only deal in one commodity, could not hold stock in other companies, and their property holdings were limited to what they needed to accomplish their business goals. And perhaps the most important facet of all this is that most states in the early days of the nation had laws on the books that made any political contribution by corporations a criminal offense. When you think about it, the regulations imposed on corporations in the early days of America were far harsher than they are now. ... The corporate entity was so restrictive that many of America’s corporate giants set

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME