Check out some similar questions!

tomder55 · Feb 11, 2009, 04:47 AM

Today on Quinn & Rose they were talking about something even more scary hidden in the stimulus. They said that hidden in the "free" medical plan is a grid that determines IF THEY feel somebody should receive things like surgical procedures. If THEY feel that the amount outweighs your life expectancy then you do not qualify for the operation

Sapph . I link to that on reply #18

George_1950 · Feb 11, 2009, 07:03 AM

Here's one reason the Repubs are in such trouble today; Specter gets "Idiot of the Week Award" for saying "we need more time on the Stimulus Bill", and then voting for it.
Video - Senator Specter on Health Care Stimulus - FNC - Congress

tomder55 · Feb 11, 2009, 09:33 AM

He's also sucker of the week .
House Democrats , on orders from Madame Mimi Pelosi, are working with Obama's staff (Rhambo)to restore many of the cuts made by Senate negotiators .

They think that Specter and the 2 RINOS from Maine have some cover so they will vote for the revisions made in the Conference Committee.
Specter ,Collins and Snowe were not notified of the House/White House moves.

I heard Specter yesterday make what sounded like a line in the sand like comment that he was through and expects the bill to pass the way it came out of the Senate.

Does that mean he and the Maine Senators will flip in the final vote ? Probably not... but there is still a chance the bill can be torpedoed.

speechlesstx · Feb 11, 2009, 10:37 AM

Well now, that's typical. Just to clarify things for the next time Obama, Pelosi and Reid talk about GOP obstruction, here's what bipartisanship means:

of, relating to, or involving members of two parties ; specifically : marked by or involving cooperation, agreement, and compromise between two major political parties

There is no bipartisanship in this bill, there's been no cooperation from the Dems, to them bipartisanship simply means "whatever we want."

As I've pointed out before the Democrat "leadership" is even shutting out their own. Reid's spokesman yesterday insulted Heath Shuler for criticizing their "leadership:

"Let me get this straight - this is coming from a guy who threw more than twice as many interceptions than touchdowns?"

Yeah, the Dems are all about hopenchange.

excon · Feb 11, 2009, 10:51 AM

Originally Posted by speechlesstx

There is no bipartisanship in this bill, there's been no cooperation from the Dem's, to them bipartisanship simply means "whatever we want."

Hello Steve:

Yeah, those Dem's should NEVER have raised the specter of bi-partisanship. Silly Dem's, they always stick their feet in their mouth... I WISH they were better than the Republicans, but they're not. Gosh darn.

But, in our system of government, whatever the majority in congress want, they DO get, as long as they have the votes and the presidency.

So, that's what is going to happen. The Dem's will get whatever they want... What's the surprise?

But... didn't you guys get whatever YOU wanted when YOU were in the same position of power?? I think you DID.

At least you never spoke about bipartisanship. For THAT, you're to be commended. Instead you told the truth about how much you hated the Democrats - certainly Dirk Armey and Tom DeLay did, no?

So, it's like I told George. I'm not taking your outrage too seriously.

excon

PS> Yeah, I know his name isn't Dirk, but you can't say D*ck here. I don't know why. It's a perfecly good word.

speechlesstx · Feb 11, 2009, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by excon

Hello Steve:

Yeah, those Dem's should NEVER have raised the specter of bi-partisanship. Silly Dem's, they always stick their feet in their mouth... I WISH they were better than the Republicans, but they're not. Gosh darn.

Ex, it isn't that they're just being typically hypocritical, the ENTIRE Obama campaign was about hope, change, not the same politics as usual, working together, bringing America together again, blah, blah, blah. That didn't even last past his inauguration speech, and for all the screed I've heard the past 8 years I'm not about to give Obama and the Dems a free pass. Yet that's EXACTLY what seems to be expected of us by the same people that screamed for 8 years. So buckle up and get used to it.

Synnen · Feb 11, 2009, 12:03 PM

This entire thread is why I think we need to get rid of the two party system entirely.

Nothing ever really gets done, people whine and cry regardless, and it just fosters hate and discontent no matter who is in charge.

tomder55 · Feb 11, 2009, 12:15 PM

Imagine the chaos in a multi-party system ? Debate (whine and cry ) is a good thing .

Synnen · Feb 11, 2009, 01:41 PM

Imagine the things that could get done when there is more than one party to break the stalemates in Congress.

Imagine how people would actually feel represented when politicians weren't constrained by party politics.

I'd take chaos over corruption, any day.

tomder55 · Feb 11, 2009, 03:05 PM

I suppose if there was enough parties involved there would be constant stalemate which may be the biggest favor the political class could give us. I always feel just a little better when Congress in in recess.

twinkiedooter · Feb 11, 2009, 03:09 PM

Name: 6a00d8341c60bf53ef011168567e9b970c-500wi.jpg
Views: 134
Size: 41.1 KB

Well, according to Newsweek we don't have to worry about that problem any longer as We're All Socialists Now. Swell. I guess it's official if Newsweek says so.

N0help4u · Feb 11, 2009, 04:17 PM

Originally Posted by twinkiedooter

Well, according to Newsweek we don't have to worry about that problem any longer as We're All Socialists Now. Swell. I guess it's official if Newsweek says so.

Yeah it seems like it is something we are suppose to be excited about!
I can't wait until four or five years from now when it all falls apart before their eyes.

twinkiedooter · Feb 12, 2009, 06:24 PM

Unfortunately, NH4U, it probably won't fall apart. Remember, Russia was "stuck" with socialism for 50+ years. They just recently got out from under this. Marxism is worse than scary. If you would like to see what America is going to look like in a few years, just remember what Russia was like under Stalin and you'll see what I'm talking about.

tomder55 · Feb 13, 2009, 04:45 AM

the state is getting more and more deeply involved in business, even taking controlling interests in some private companies. And the state is even trying to “make policy” for private companies they do not control, but merely “help” with “infusions of capital,” as in the recent call for salary caps for certain CEOs. So state power is growing at the expense of corporations.
But that's not socialism. Socialism rests on a firm theoretical bedrock: the abolition of private property.

What is happening now.....is an expansion of the state's role, an increase in public/private joint ventures and partnerships, and much more state regulation of business.

It's fascism.

during the great economic crisis of the 1930s, fascism was widely regarded as a possible solution, indeed as the only acceptable solution to a spasm that had shaken the entire First World, and beyond. It was hailed as a “third way” between two failed systems (communism and capitalism), retaining the best of each. Private property was preserved, as the role of the state was expanded. This was necessary because the Great Depression was defined as a crisis “of the system,” not just a glitch “in the system.” And so Mussolini created the “Corporate State,” in which, in theory at least, the big national enterprises were entrusted to state ownership (or substantial state ownership) and of course state management.

Faster, Please! » We Are All Fascists Now

speechlesstx · Feb 13, 2009, 11:16 AM

Good news is, our leaders haven't even read the bill yet. Maybe that's how this fascism creeps in, you think?

When CNSNews.com asked members of both parties on Capitol Hill on Thursday whether they had read the full, final bill, not one member could say, “Yes.”…

“The Democrats have thrown this at us very last-minute,” said Rep. Zach Wamp (R-Tenn.). “That’s why the rule of thumb in the United States Congress should be, ‘When in doubt, vote no,’ because the devil is in the details and that’s why this stimulus is not worthy of support.”

Rep. John Boozman (R-Ark.) shared that sentiment. “The American public expects for us to get in and know what we’re voting on,” Boozman said. “But there are very few members from Congress that are going to have time to actually read this thing.”

There oughtta be a law, no bill can be passed if it hasn't been read, no congressman can vote on a bill they haven't read, perhaps even no legislation can be passed prior to being posted in a searchable text document being posted on line. I don't care, read it - every word out loud if you have to - to the entire congress. If for no other reason having not read the bill should be enough to vote no. After all, our president promised transparency and accountability...

And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account -- to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day -- because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.

tomder55 · Feb 13, 2009, 11:38 AM

That won't stop the whole lot of them from voting for it anyway. Maybe if they were compelled to read the legislation they pass it wouldn't be over 1000 pages long.

Wasn't any new bill supposed to be posted on the internet for 5 days before a vote ? I think I heard the candidate Obama say that .

Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/

He already signed SCHIP without the 5 day rule and he plans on signing this Monday.