Hello:

Those of us who supported Obama thought he was going to bring about the change he campaigned on. Those of you who opposed him thought he would too.

We were both wrong.

excon

He brought change all right. The unemployment rate is at near record levels... our debt is now at record levels... he has made a laughing stockl out of our country.

And the arrogant SOB is obsessed with having his face and dumbo ears on the TV every day.

Any time he shows his face on TV I want to turn the channel. Thank GOD for cable TV I can find a channel he's NOT on spouting his BS and lies.

He brought change all right. The unemployment rate is at near record levels....our debt is now at record levels....Hello smoothy:

Well, the economic debacle DID occur on Bush's watch... One can't forget that. Oh, I know you'd LIKE to forget it, but I'm going to remind you. And, I don't care how many times he's on TV. I just want him to CHANGE something, - like maybe firing the people at the SEC. The ones who STILL work there, who worked there while we were being ripped off, and they weren't paying attention...

Changes like that...

excon

http://hotair.cachefly.net/images/2010-03/reagan-billboard-520.jpg

Hello smoothy:

Well, the economic debacle DID occur on Bush's watch... One can't forget that. Oh, I know you'd LIKE to forget it, but I'm gonna remind you. And, I don't care how many times he's on TV. I just want him to CHANGE something, - like maybe firing the people at the SEC. The ones who STILL work there, who worked there while we were being ripped off, and they weren't paying attention...

Changes like that....

excon

Um... the Demcrats had the majority in both the house and the senate the last 2 years of Bushes term. And that's where the "Stumulus" debacle was written. Forget the actaul stats but the majority of democrats voted for it, while it was a minority of republicans.

Yeah Bush signed it ( a stupid mistake, he should have vetoed it)... but he wasn't solely responsible for it. Obama voted FOR it.

And it was Chris Dodd a democrat who chaired the Banking Committee during that period. And it Was Christ Dodd, Hillary Clinton and Obama who were the top three recipients of contributions from Wall Street.


Socialism is change... change we don't need or want.

Where are the calls to investigate Nancy Pelosi on what she knew and when she knew it...

She knew about Massa two years ago...

She was the one demanding the investigateion into the Mark Foley thing which is no different.

THIS is the most corrupt administration that we have had in at least the last century.

Why is he hiding ALL of his records... where is his birth Certificate... why are his college grades a national secret? If he was so smart and the brain the left claims... why is he hiding the proof he got higher than a 1.7 GPA.



This is the USA... you are entitled to the CHANCE to make your fortune... not to have it handed to you after its stolen from someone who earned it.

Lazy people aren't entitled to anything. They have to earn it like the rest of us. I made a LOT of sacrifices and hard work to get where I'm at now (no I'm not rich either)... they have to do the same.

Hello again, Smoothy:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's the kind of stuff that I want him to change. I ain't no mouthpiece for the Democrats in congress.

excon

Hello again, Smoothy:

Yeah, yeah, yeah. That's the kind of stuff that I want him to change. I ain't no mouthpiece for the Democrats in congress.

exconReleasing his records... and coming to terms that he is president... not the King... will be a good change to start with.

As a former teacher (in parochial schools, not public), I'm watching what is happening with education and where Arne Duncan is going to take us. I firmly believe not everyone has to go to college to be a success. I am in favor of two years of some kind of required volunteer national service (R&B would be provided) -- military, social service, building houses, wildlife concerns -- after high school, or at least somewhere between ages 18 and 25.

High school has become elementary school, and college has become high school. Students are being taught remedial stuff in high school and even in college, stuff they should have learned in grade school. Students aren't being taught how to think, how to reason, how to analyze, how to use deduction. Bring back into elementary school the Palmer method, diagramming sentences, making an outline before writing a story or essay or term paper. Too many students want the easy way without much or any effort on their part. Hang out for a while on AMHD's Writing and Homework boards, and you will see what I mean.

*breaks down into wracking sobs*

Too many students want the easy way without much or any effort on their part. Hang out for a while on AMHD's Writing and Homework boards, and you will see what I mean.
Just to offer another view: that may be more attributed to the arrival of the internet versus bad schooling.

As a former teacher (in parochial schools, not public), I'm watching what is happening with education and where Arne Duncan is going to take us. I firmly believe not everyone has to go to college to be a success. I am in favor of two years of some kind of required volunteer national service (R&B would be provided) -- military, social service, building houses, wildlife concerns -- after high school, or at least somewhere between ages 18 and 25.

High school has become elementary school, and college has become high school. Students are being taught remedial stuff in high school and even in college, stuff they should have learned in grade school. Students aren't being taught how to think, how to reason, how to analyze, how to use deduction. Bring back into elementary school the Palmer method, diagramming sentences, making an outline before writing a story or essay or term paper. Too many students want the easy way without much or any effort on their part. Hang out for a while on AMHD's Writing and Homework boards, and you will see what I mean.

*breaks down into wracking sobs*Oh, I agree... I saw that starting in the 70's, and yeah I did start college in late '79. THey have been dumbing things down for a long time rather than pushing them to learn more. I'm not teacher, nor would I make a good one. I don't have the patience for starters. But if they spent more time teaching them what needs to be taught.. and less time on political correctness. THey might learn more.

In my opinion the decline really became apparent when corporal punishment was outlawed.

That was the only effective way to control certain kids... they feared nothing but the embarrassment of a paddling.

I'm not dumping it on all the teachers... only some. It's their unions and the NEA that pushes their agenda ahead of actually educating the kids as a priority. And even the good teachers are hobbled by a left leaning curriculum they are required to follow.

IMHO the decline really became apparent when corporal punishment was outlawed.
I disagree. The decline began in the late '60s when women went to work, and parenting and family life changed. People got greedy, and capitalism fed that greed.

Well I am young enough to have not noticed that then... plus I was in a fairly reserved area... I did see a rapid slide happening right at the point of Pollitical correctness rearing its ugly head... then the lack of control and discipline when kids basically doing what they want when they wanted... because nothing intimidated them.

You may very well be right about it starting in the late 60's. I was just unable to see it from my perspective due to my age, I'm 48 now, so I was in the system at that time, so that's the norm baseline I grew up knowing. There were very few younger teachers when I was in school, so you had older generation teachers doing things the old way... and we basically learned to do the schoolwork that was required... and heaven forbid we didn't. Maybe I was in one of the later holdout areas.

PS.. I do know when my younger brother came through a few years later... there had been big changes from when I attended.

I've got a few years on you and have watched the changes. I know that the events of the late '60s (many producing good changes and improvements to our lives) turned American life on its head. Unfortunately, bad came with the good. I thank God every day I was taught by my parents and teachers how to think, how not to be bored, how to write thank-you notes and professional business letters, how to diagram a sentence and make a useful outline before writing something, how to appreciate great art and music, how to correctly sew on a button and hem a dress or pants, how to bake cookies or make an entire meal from scratch, how to balance a checkbook, and how to engage a roomful of adults or children. And most of that was taught to me (and all of my friends and classmates) at home by parents. Does that sort of thing happen any more at home and/or at school?

I've got a few years on you and have watched the changes. I know that the events of the late '60s (many producing good changes and improvements to our lives) turned American life on its head. Unfortunately, bad came with the good. I thank God every day I was taught by my parents and teachers how to think, how not to be bored, how to write thank-you notes and professional business letters, how to diagram a sentence and make a useful outline before writing something, how to appreciate great art and music, how to correctly sew on a button and hem a dress or pants, how to bake cookies or make an entire meal from scratch, how to balance a checkbook, and how to engage a roomful of adults or children. And most of that was taught to me (and all of my friends and classmates) at home by parents. Does that sort of thing happen any more at home and/or at school?

It did in my house too. But I seriously doubt it is in most places these days... listening to what kids think they are owed I believe teaching those things at home is a lost art.

And as a guy I did learn to cook, do my laundry, do basic mending, sew buttons back on, Hemming my pants... because in those days they came in long or short and you had to hem to length, and it cost a fortune to pay someone else to do it... and that any bachelor should know how to do anything he needs to survive.

Yeah.. I learned how to do plumbing, electrical work, carpendery, mechanical work... etc as well. Because what YOU were able to do, you didn't have to pay someone else to do... and that's money you could save for yourself.

He only promised change in the process ;he was the post partisan politician. That's how he advertised himself .

The fact that those of us who actually dug into the limited public record that was available ;doing the job that the "free press " refused to ,brought us to surmise his true goals.

Btw ;read my signature quote from his book .It says a lot.

I guess we lucked out in his inability and ,frankly desire ,to do the hard work necessary to match his ambitions. I should be happy I guess that he handed off his agenda to the likes of the fools on the Hill ,and the overy ambitious David Axelrod (I'll give Rhambo a pass for this thred because I think he understands that the change that is the agena should've been incremental) .

What really would floor me if it weren't so hilarious is that now he is doing his one true love ;campaigning . However , his biggest argument to the masses is not the utopian balloons he flated in 2008 . He has resorted to Republican rhetoric .

He isn't selling a single payer socialized government takeover anymore ;even though he has been clear in the past that is his desire.

He instead uses language like...
“choice”
“competition,”
"reduce government control,”
“give you more control over your own health insurance.”

It's all a lie of course .The language of all the bills passed so far is clearly a move for more direct government control . But the rhetoric sounds good on the campaign trail....and like all good Alinskyites ;he has singled out a target to demonize...the insurance companies.

As for the financial "crisis " ...all the players from the previous adm. sans Paulson are still in goverment hire .
Ex ;you sound like a tea-party guy !!
Forget the regulators ,they were doing the desires of the administrations in power for the last 16 years . Why is it that Dodd on the eve of his retirement is floating a watered down version of "reform " ?
The answer is that despite the flaming rhetoric and faux outrage, the people in power are content with the status quo.

Wondergirl ;I fully agree with you and if I can I'll find my recent comments on the state of the higher education system I'll link them.

Edit : found them here
https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/current-events/day-action-454823.html

He instead uses language like ...
“choice”
“competition,”
"reduce government control,”
“give you more control over your own health insurance.”

I believe he said today that Obamacare would lower insurance costs by 3000 percent. Nice trick if you can do it.

I believe he said today that Obamacare would lower insurance costs by 3000 percent. Nice trick if you can do it.

Oh, it might for Chicago inner city slum dwellers... because he wants those of us who worked hard to become a success to pay not only for our own... but for all the inner city high school dropouts and drug dealers too.

The quote:


How many people are getting insurance through their jobs right now? Raise your hands. All right, well, a lot of those folks, your employer, it’s estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3000%, which means they could give you a raise!

Obviously math is not this deficit hawk's strong suit.

The quote:



Obviously math is not this deficit hawk's strong suit.

Sure ,most employers when given the option of dumping their employee's plan when a "public option" becomes available would gladly exercise it. (yes I know the Senate version drops it but it will be put back in reconciliation).
http://newsjunkiepost.com/2010/03/15/breaking-public-option-in-house-reconciliation-bill/
Under those circumstances their premium payout may well drop at that rate ,but the price of health coverage will not change.

Sure ,most employers when given the option of dumping their employee's plan when a "public option" becomes available would gladly exercise it. Hello tom:

Burdening employers with the cost of health care for their employees WAS a good idea once. But, it puts our industry at a great disadvantage in the worldwide marketplace. Seems like you righty's would LIKE an even playing field in the world. I would. Don't our cars have something like $1,800 built in to them from the get go from medical expenses?? I think they do. Their competitors don't. Hmmmm... I wonder if that has anything to do with the meltdown in Detroit?? Nahhhh.

However, I don't believe a public option will make it into the bill.

excon

Ex if it's the cost of markups due to union contracts and their effect on our competitive advantage you are referring to then that is a separate issue . Nothing mandates that they get benefits far exceeding most of the rest of the American workforce .
You watch... now that GM is Government Motors I can almost guarantee the "employer " is going to go hardline when the negotiations for new contracts happen.

You get what you pay for... if they expect to have massive savings... its going to come from an even more massive reduction of benefits. Get cancer... you have to wait 18 months for treatment... have a heart attack... take a number and if you are still breathing in a few months we will get to you. THe Canadian Prime Minister flew to Florida for heart surgery rather than go to a Canadian hospital... what does THAT tell you.

Nobody who has actually seen socialized medicine overseas after knowing what we have here wants anything to do with it.

I've seen it first hand... I've been in European hospitals. I've had friends and family die in them when if they were here they most likely would have survived.

European hospitals scare the hell out of me... and for good reason.

SOME doctors might be fine... but they have a lot of idiots too, and the system is so screwed up Stephen King would have a hard time dreaming it up.

One can only hope a very aggressive form of crotch cancer afflicts everyone who voted for Socilized healthcare.

And yeah I do mean that... I didn't make the sacrificed to go to college, and no I got NO help from the government, and my family was too poor to help, so some Blowhard from Chicago can steal MY hard earned money to subsidize a inner city High School dropouts healthcare. Because heaven forbid... THEY make any sacrifices to get their own.

One can only hope a very agressive form of crotch cancer afflicts everyone who voted for Socilized healthcare.Such a sweet thing to say, let me guess, you count yourself as religious as well?

Hey do you remember your first thread here? https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/family-law/trouble-getting-insurance-claim-paid-routine-medical-procedure-126597.html

I will never experience that in my life. Neat eh?

Had totally forgotten about that one... the problem wasn't the insurance company... but that medical practice, mostly the office manager there. I need to go back and make sure I completed that thread as to what happened in the end.

It got paid... without the help of the office manager idiot at the Doctors office. The physicians at the practice I use no longer refer ANY patients to them... my bad experience with them wasn't isolated at all it seems. Others had similar horror stories. Good Doctor... with a horrific support staff working out of an equally bad medical center. You know Karma... "what goes around comes around." THey got a bad rep in the local medical circles... going to be hard for them to get away from that since there are plenty of other places to get the same thing around here.

Nobody who praises the Canadian or UK health system... even the EEU ones... have actually ever experienced them, or been able to compare them to what we have here, now. I've seen it in Europe... I've grown up with it here. You don't want to be in a European Hospital if you could be in one here instad. I have a number of relatives, and friends who are no longer among the living as a direct result of Socialized medicine.

The politicians lie... profusely about everything... and there are a certain number of idiots that blindly believe weverything they are told... because all good socialists believe what they are told by the Party leaders. How else would that idiot have gotten elected... He's never had a real job his entire life. So how did he get his millions? And yeah... he has millions. Nothing he ever did paid that sort of money.

Had totally forgotten about that one.....the problem wasn't the insurance company...but that medical practice, mostly the office manager there.

It got paid....without the help of them.

Nobody who praises the Canadian or UK health system....even the EEU ones...have actually ever experienced them, or been able to compare them to what we have here, now.

They lie...profusely about everything....and there are a certain number of idiots that blindly believe weverything they are told.....because all good socialists believe what they are told by the Party leaders.Yes, everyone lies, except your guys. :rolleyes:

You should help answer the questions in the Health and Wellness boards here. It might open up your eyes a bit. You might also see your physician re: paranoia.

Yes, everyone lies, except your guys. :rolleyes:

You should help answer the questions in the Health and Wellness boards here. It might open up your eyes a bit. You might also see your physician re: paranoia.Not hardly... you need to see what's really in that bill... no you won't here in on the mainstream media... they love socialism.

Ever wonder why it took place with such secrecy.. outside of public view...

Ever wonder why there was absolutely NO transparency since the Messiah was voted into office with the help of ACORN through fraud...

Ever wonder, why Nancy Pelosi was saying we have to vote for this bill so we can find out what's in it? You have heard her saying that in those words... haven't you?


You know about the Cornhusker kickback... the Lousiziana Purchase, and the buyouts to Fla. That in the that bill... HUGE ammounts of OUR money paid in bribes for a couple votes in that senate bill... and yeah they are still there...

Don't look to hear what's really in it on CNN...

Hell, its NOT paranoia that Obamas records are still sealed... his records from his time in Illinois... ALL his school records... everything, birth Certificate, everything. Sealed... why, what's he hiding... The FIRST president to hide everything... why? What's he afraid we might see? That he never attended those schools... that he fluncked out... that he barely passed IF he passed at all?

If he was so damn smart, if his grades were so good... you'd think he would be proud to show them... not hide them.


Personally... I think wefare bums should be forced to work... no free anything. The only people who should get anything are the seriouslty handicapped... and those poor soles of limited intelligence. However willful stupidity is a choice... and shouldn't be rewarded.

Drop out of school... tough, your choice, you live with it... no handouts of any type. Those are limited to people who completed high school.

Have 5 kids from 5 different fathers... tough... make them pay for them... not us. No free abortion... use a condom or live with your choices.

I have to work... so should they.

Hello Smoothy:

You're a birther. That explains it all.

excon

Hell, its NOT paranoia that Obamas records are still sealed.....his records from his time in Illinois...ALL his school records....everything, birth Certificate, everything. Sealed...why, whats he hiding...The FIRST president to hide everything...why? Whats he afraid we might see? That he never attended those schools....that he fluncked out...that he barely passed IF he passed at all?

If he was so damn smart, if his grades were so good....you'd think he would be proud to show them....not hide them.

And if he produced them, you certainly wouldn't say, "Gee, it's so easy nowadays with computers and word processing. He printed them all out in the dark of night in the basement of the White House. They're fake."

Such a sweet thing to say, let me guess, you count yourself as religious as well?

Hey do you remember your first thread here? https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/family-law/trouble-getting-insurance-claim-paid-routine-medical-procedure-126597.html

I will never experience that in my life. Neat eh?


Actually, thanks for reminding me of that one... I failed to do the final follow-up. Which I now did. Even if its WAYYYYYYY late. Better than leaving it hanging. Somehow I had totally forgotten to do this back then.

And if he produced them, you certainly wouldn't say, "Gee, it's so easy nowadays with computers and word processing. He printed them all out in the dark of night in the basement of the White House. They're fake."

IF they were produced, before the election... there would be no taint to them... anything that's produced this late and after so much complaint... would be subject to increased critisim and distrust.


If he was such a consummate politician... he would have known every action a politician takes has a consequence.

If they had been produced early on during campaigning... then there would not have been an issue.

Look what John Kerry did... blowviating about how smart he was and how dumb Bush was... only to find out after the election he was hiding his records because his grades were even lower than Bushes were.


See where I am going there... if they were worthy of being proud of... why are they being hidden. After all his whoreshippers spout how infinately wise and smart he is... so lets see the proof? I haven't seen a single smart thing since he took office happen.

Hello Smoothy:

You're a birther. That explains it all.

exconNope... I'm just not convinced there isn't some small validity to it. Nobody I trust has actually seen it. Even if its not open to the public. I want someone I believe that's not a Obama whoreshiper to say... I've seen it and it exists... I'd be happy with that.

What I don't trust is anyone in the democratic party, they lie about everything... if we had a few prominent republicans (they lie less frequently) who aren't Rino's say they saw it and it exists... I'm happy with that. Birthers aren't... because you CAN artificially age a document to fool most people in the time that's elapsed. I'm not requiring proof of the documents age. They would.

If they had been produced early on during campaigning....then there would not have been an issue.So why didn't the republicans and McCain jump all over this to disqualify him? Are Republicans that stupid as to not grab the opportunity? Or are you just much more intelligent and have access to better information than they do?

Nope.....I'm just no convinced there isn't some small validity to it. Nobody I trust has actually seen it. Even if its not open to the public. I want someone I believe thats not a Obama whoreshiper to say...I've seen it and it exists.....I'd be happy with that.Hmmm... you sound like a Communist - prove that you are not.

Hmmm...you sound like a Communist - prove that you are not.Simple... I believe in people getting a job and paying for their own stuff. Kids, Medical Insurance... and everything else included.


Communists think the lazy should share in the spoils the motivated EARN.

Simple....I believe in people getting a job and paying for their own stuff. Medical Insurance...and everything else included.


Communists think the lazy should share in the spoils the motivated EARN.
Sorry comrade, your words won't do it. Let's see some paperwork. And not something signed by Fidel please.

So why didn't the republicans and McCain jump all over this to disqualify him? Are Republicans that stupid as to not grab the opportunity? Or are you just much more intelligent and have access to better information than they do?

I'm not a McCain supporter... this election was between McCain and Beelzebub. McCain was the better choice of the two... even if I wasn't a big fan of his. And while the Democrat party is wholely populated with idiots and crooks... the Republican party isn't without a few of their own too.

Beelzebub. Oh no - the devil!! 111eleven!!

LOL!

Sorry comrade, your words won't do it. Let's see some paperwork. And not something signed by Fidel please.Proof you aren't... papers?


See, I'm not running for public office... nor do I plan to be. But if I was... mine would be out there. Because the public has the right to know who their officials really are.

Politicians are by definition, brown-nosers... I can't do that. Its against my nature to even try. That's WHY you won't see me running for office. Because no way am I kissing anyone's behind just to get a chance to run.

Simple....I believe in people getting a job and paying for their own stuff. Kids, Medical Insurance...and everything else included.Hello again, smoothy:

So, you don't believe we should pool together to hire inspectors to check out our meat and stuff. You don't think we should pool (socialize), our fire and police protection?? You want to pay for it yourself, huh? You mentioned kids above. Do you pay for your kids education, or do you let the government do it?

Do you see where I'm going here? Nahhh, you don't.

excon

One can only hope a very agressive form of crotch cancer afflicts everyone who voted for Socilized healthcare.

And yeah I do mean that....I didn't make the sacrificed to go to college, and no I got NO help from the government, and my family was too poor to help, so some Blowhard from Chicago can steal MY hard earned money to subsidize a inner city High School dropouts healthcare. Because heaven forbid...THEY make any sacrifices to get their own.

I second that, Smoothy. Let all those jerks who voted for the socialized medicine or "health care" get aggressive crotch cancer and have their little dingys fall off. What a cute euphamism the word health care is for something truly despicable.

OR better yet

VOTE out all those gutless, dingyless, spineless bastar*s in November who voted for that piece of legislation. Their day of reckoning is coming. I sure hope they enjoy living like the rest of the "astroturf" they disdained by voting for this phoney coverup of the starting of the takeover of a Free America.

Hello again, smoothy:

So, you don't believe we should pool together to hire inspectors to check out our meat and stuff. You don't think we should pool (socialize), our fire and police protection??? You wanna pay for it yourself, huh? You mentioned kids above. Do you pay for your kids education, or do you let the government do it?

Do you see where I'm going here?? Nahhh, you don't.

exconI believe in a head tax... you want 10 kids... you pay for 10 kids. Do I think that's going to go anyplace? No... but that's fair... people would pay a fairer share of the services they consume. The current method is grossly unfair.

Where do they Pool the police and fire departments? Not where I live. And how are FDA inspectors considered socialist?

I second that, Smoothy. Let all those jerks who voted for the socialized medicine or "health care" get aggressive crotch cancer and have their little dingys fall off. What a cute euphamism the word health care is for something truly despicable.

OR better yet

VOTE out all those gutless, dingyless, spineless bastar*s in November who voted for that piece of legislation. Their day of reckoning is coming. I sure hope they enjoy living like the rest of the "astroturf" they disdained by voting for this phoney coverup of the starting of the takeover of a Free America.

Exactly... as an American you are entitled to the PURSUIT of the American dream... what you are not entitled to is to have everything handed to you. Which of course means it was taken from someone else who actually earned it first before it was given to someone who didn't earn it at all.

That's exactly where many immigrants have a better grasp of what it is to be American than many people who were born and raised here.

Where do they Pool the police and fire departments? Not where I live. And how are FDA inspectors considered socialist?Hello again, smoothy:

So, when it's socialism you LIKE, you don't want to call it socialism. I understand. Really, I do.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

So, when it's socialism you LIKE, you don't wanna call it socialism. I understand. Really, I do.

exconYou didn't answer my question... exactly where do they "Pool" police and fire departments? That doesn't happen in my part of the country. Those are local services paid for by local taxes... there is nothing socialized about them. Socialism would have me paying for police halfway across the country instead of my own because THEY aren't paying for their own.

And exactly how are FDA inspectors "socialism"? I'm asking because I don't see how those equate to socialism.

I have stated elsewhere that the Police and Fire Depts are local and not national . But if they were ,the Constitution provides for the "common defense" .

FDA was established on a constitutional concept that is often abused by the Federal Government . None-the-less,there is a mandate to regulate interstate commerce in the constitution.

Those are local services paid for by local taxes.....there is nothing socialized about them.

And exactly how are FDA inspectors "socialism"? I'm asking because I don't see how those equate to socialism.Hello again, smoothy:

If your police WEREN'T socialized, when you had a robbery, you'd call up your private police force if you could afford 'em. We had 'em, once. They were called vigilantes.. But, we decided to spread the risk (socialize it), and hire a police force that worked for ALL of us. THAT is quintessential socialism. The fact that they're local, and not national, doesn't change a thing.

If the meat inspectors WEREN'T socialized, you'd buy your meat where you had your own PRIVATE inspectors checking out the stuff. That, or you'd be taking your chances.. But, we as a society decided to SOCIALIZE meat inspection, and put the government in charge of it.

It's socialism, plain and simple. And, you LIKE it, so you don't want to call it socialism.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

If your police WEREN'T socialized, when you had a robbery, you'd call up your private police force if you could afford 'em. We had 'em, once. They were called vigilantes.. But, we decided to spread the risk (socialize it), and hire a police force that worked for ALL of us. THAT is quintessential socialism. The fact that they're local, and not national, doesn't change a thing.

If the meat inspectors WEREN'T socialized, you'd buy your meat where you had your own PRIVATE inspectors checking out the stuff. That, or you'd be taking your chances.. But, we as a society decided to SOCIALIZE meat inspection, and put the government in charge of it.

It's socialism, plain and simple. And, you LIKE it, so you don't wanna call it socialism.

exconThat's not how it works... Local governments established their own police force for its residents... the residents pay for them in their own taxes. Not all localities may do this. And the juridiction of these police are limited to the town or citiy limits. That's not socialism.

FDA inspectors are not soicalized. They exist to verify that food which does cross state lines complies with regulations pertaining to clearliness etc. States can only do that within their own state boundries...

Now if the Government took over all food production... THAT would be socialism.

Except if you live in California... where they believe the world rotates around them and can dictate to everyone else... but that doesn't give them any legal status to do so.

Thats not how it works.....Hello again, smoothy:

It's EXACTLY how it works. Socialism is an idea. It's got nothing to do with boundary's. It got to do with people pooling (socializing) risk.

But if they were ,the Constitution provides for the "common defense" .... None-the-less,there is a mandate to regulate interstate commerce in the constitution.Hello tom:

I didn't say socialism is unconstitutional.

Plus, see what I said about boundary's to smoothy.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

It's EXACTLY how it works. Socialism is an idea. It's got nothing to do with boundary's. It got to do with people pooling (socializing) risk.
Hello tom:

I didn't say socialism is unconstitutional.

Plus, see what I said about boundary's to smoothy.

exconI still don't see how you equate anything Federal to socialism? Because there is a difference.

Now if the Feds came in established new ones and said... this is the Police... this is the Fire Dept... we run them, and nobody else can and all others are now illegal.

Now That's socialism.

Now if the Feds came in established new ones and said...Hello again, smoothy:

You still think socialism has to do with boundary's or size. It doesn't. It's an IDEA that can be put to work on a small scale or a larger one.

Here what wikkipedia says is socialism:

"Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources."

Isn't that exactly what we do with our cops and firemen? Don't we publicly own the police and fire department "resources"? Don't we collectively, "administer the means of production and allocation of those resources"?

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

You still think socialism has to do with boundary's or size. It doesn't. It's an IDEA that can be put to work on a small scale or a larger one.

Here what wikkipedia says is socialism:

"Socialism refers to the various theories of economic organization which advocate either public or direct worker ownership and administration of the means of production and allocation of resources."

Isn't that exactly what we do with our cops and firemen? Don't we publicly own the police and fire department "resources"? Don't we collectively, "administer the means of production and allocation of those resources"?

exconWell, Wikipedia isn't always right about everything.

I do see the point you are trying to make now... I might not agree with it. But I at least can see where your argument is coming from.

Well, Wikipedia isn't always right about everything.
You want other documentation that Wikipedia is correct with its explanation? I can quote you the same from an encyclopedia. Will you accept the explanation from an encyclopedia? How about a dictionary?

P.S. "Socialism." Oxford English Dictionary. "1. A theory or policy of social organisation which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all people."

I do see the point you are trying to make now.....I might not agree with it. But I at least can see where your argument is coming from.Hello again, smoothy:

All I'm saying, is that we're FINE with SOME socialism. I'm a libertarian. I'm a capitalist. I do believe, however, that the clause in the Preamble which says "to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves" means that it's incumbent upon the government to provide a safety net.

Now I agree that I'm making that up. But, no more than you are when you think you're entitled to a "safety net" known as law enforcement. Now we can discuss how broad a safety net it should be, or whether there should be one at all. Clearly, we believe that, as a society, we should at the minimum, provide a safety net that includes protection against fire and crime. Personally, I'm fine with spreading the safety net to old people so that they shouldn't have to live in the street, even IF they were less than stellar investors.. I'm also fine with providing them health care too. In fact, I'm fine providing everybody with health care.

I don't think that makes me a socialist, and more than your thinking that fire protection should be afforded to you does. I do NOT believe the government should "take over" ANY industry. This law certainly isn't a "take over" as the noise machine says. It doesn't portend any future socialistic activity to me either.

excon

Mr. Bush left this country in a mess! He lied to the people about WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in order to validate his going into Iraq. Okay! I voted for him so I can gripe! When Saddam was captured he should have pulled out of Iraq and focused on Afghanistan and the true culprit OSAMA BIN LADEN.

As the mother of a son who has been in Iraq and Afghanistan more than a few times I think Bush dropped the ball and listened too much to Donald Rumsfeld who in my opinion knew nothing about anything. And Bush was a puppet his strings being pulled by the great "HONEST" Cheney. That was sarcasm by the way the "Honest" word.

I think McCain should have been elected at least he has the experience.
Obama is like all the former presidents, he is promising things, he cannot deliver. Place the blame on the right person. I worry about all the young men and women who have lost their lives. I support my son and all the military who are in harms way! I am an American and even with her flaws I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

Bush did the right thing by going into Afghanistan after what they did on 9/11 but I question his reasons for Iraq. This was once a nation based on truth and honesty ,under God, it's not that anymore. I agree with Smoothy about our schools. When corporal punishment was taken out of the schools they have become almost frightning.

Kids walking into schools with guns, killing innocent children. No prayer. No mention of God, no way a teacher can make a child behave and if you do take away recess or give them a note to take home, all hades breaks loose cause mommy and daddy don't want their sweet little angel being deprived of a privilege.


When I was in school, this is what my parents said, "if you get a paddling in school, you'll get another one when you get home". We grew up respecting our teachers and our parents. I'm stating an opinion and I know most of you will not agree with on what I have said. Thanks EX-Con for giving me a chance to vent.

Thats not how it works
Yes, it is. Do you pay your own mail carrier who delivers only to your house? What are the names of your personal fireman and policeman?

I'm a librarian but am not assigned to serve only one individual or family. I work in a public library that buys new books and DVDs and video games and lots of other library materials and also pays for a staff, maintenance on a building, and improvements/repairs to that building. The money comes from property taxes collected from property owners in a community. Do you have a library card?

I'm stating an opinion and I know most of you will not agree with on what I have said. Thanks EX-Con for giving me a chance to vent.Hello K

You're welcome.. But, that's what this board is - a place for you to state your opinion. Who cares if somebody agrees with you or not?

excon

Mr. Bush left this country in a mess! He lied to the people about WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in order to validate his going into Iraq. Okay! I voted for him so I can gripe! When Saddam was captured he should have pulled out of Iraq and focused on Afghanistan and the true culprit OSAMA BIN LADEN.

As the mother of a son who has been in Iraq and Afghanistan more than a few times I think Bush dropped the ball and listened to much to Donald Rumsfeld who in my opinion knew nothing about anything. And Bush was a puppet his strings being pulled by the great "HONEST" Cheney. That was sarcasm by the way the "Honest" word.

I think McCain should have been elected at least he has the experience.
Obama is like all the former presidents, he is promising things, he cannot deliver. Place the blame on the right person. I worry about all the young men and women who have lost their lives. I support my son and all the military who are in harms way! I am an American and even with her flaws I wouldn't want to live anywhere else.

Bush did the right thing by going into Afghanistan after what they did on 9/11 but I question his reasons for Iraq. This was once a nation based on truth and honesty ,under God, it's not that anymore. I agree with Smoothy about our schools. When corporal punishment was taken out of the schools they have become almost frightning.

Kids walking into schools with guns, killing innocent children. No prayer. no mention of God, no way a teacher can make a child behave and if you do take away recess or give them a note to take home, all hades breaks loose cause mommy and daddy don't want their sweet little angel being deprived of a privilage.


When i was in school, this is what my parents said, "if you get a paddling in school, you'll get another one when you get home". We grew up respecting our teachers and our parents. I'm stating an opinion and I know most of you will not agree with on what I have said. Thanks EX-Con for giving me a chance to vent.

Really... you should talk to Canada who processed several hundred metric tons of Yellowcake Uranium taken out of Iraq. Right.. the mainstream news avoided that one because it proved them wrong.

Besides... Obama, Bill Clinton, John Kerry... and everyone else that's been harping that tune saw the same evidence and same briefings Bush did and agreed ON Record... and on video, yeah I've heard their voices saying it too.

So the entire Demcrat Party are liars too, they all agreed at the time. Lets hear it... you can't blame one person and give a pass to everyone else that had the SAME briefings. ANd it wasn't just the USA... other European countries did too.

I agree.. about the kids lacking any discipline too.

If I got it at school I got it at home too. And the parents at least share the blame in that... they allow their little monsters to do whatever they want, whenever they want. I couldn't be a teacher... I'd be fired for beating the hell of the first smartazz to get cocky with me in the classroom. I have no tollerance for kids who never learned respect at home.

McCain did at least have experience... unlike Beezlebub... who never did an honest days work his entire life.

Lot about McCain I didn't like... but at least the man had the balls to be honest about who he was and what he stood for. Like him or hate him, you had to respect him... but no... Acorn got enough numbers fudged to get a man elected who needs a teleprompter to say more than 5 words without putting his foot in his mouth and who likely hasn't been honest once in his adult life.


I don't like or respect a person who #1 feels an obsession to be on TV every freaking day... and #2 rarely opens his mouth without reading what he has to say off a teleprompter. Why, I think we know why. He can't, he comes across as a bumling fool from the Chicago projects if he doesn't rely on someone else's words.

Hello K

You're welcome.. But, that's what this board is - a place for you to state your opinion. Who cares if somebody agrees with you or not?

excon Thanks for clearing that up and again thank you for letting me vent.:)

I do believe, however, that the clause in the Preamble which says "to promote the general welfare and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves" means that it's incumbent upon the government to provide a safety net.
I've been paying for public school education since 1972, but my own kids have never attended a public school. In fact, now that my kids are adults, and I'm old and sick, I'm still paying for public education. Does somebody owe me a refund?

Really....you should talk to Canada who processed several hundred metric tons of Yellowcake Uranium taken out of Iraq.

Besides....Obama, Bill Clinton, John Kerry....and everyone else thats been harping that tune saw the same evidence and same briefings Bush did and agreed ON Record...and on video, yeah I've heard their voices saying it too.

So the entire Demcrat Party are liars too, they all agreed at the time. Lets hear it...you can't blame one person and give a pass to everyone else that had the SAME briefings. ANd it wasn't just the USA...other European countries did too.

I agree..about the kids lacking any discipline too.

If I got it at school I got it at home too. And the parents at least share the blame in that....

Stating an opinon Smoothy and in our political arena yes there are liars on both sides. I wish our schools today and parents today were like the parents we had. I hate politics .:)

My kids have never gotten into trouble, no school shootings have ever occurred in my city, and we're atheists!

My kids have never gotten into trouble, no school shootings have ever occurred in my city, and we're atheists!
You're probably a good parent too. So? Same here, and we're Lutheran.

My kids have never gotten into trouble, no school shootings have ever occurred in my city, and we're atheists!

I'm happy for you! My kids are wonderful children also. We haven't had a school shooting in our city, but I think about all the other places. Have a good day!:)

You're probably a good parent too. So? Same here, and we're Lutheran.Yes, it's about parenting and making that the priority. My post was simply to state that having prayer or mention of a god in school doesn't make a difference. It's the parents that make the difference.

I've been paying for public school education since 1972, but my own kids have never attended a public school. In fact, now that my kids are adults, and I'm old and sick, I'm still paying for public education. Does somebody owe me a refund?I think you are owed one... after all, in our local schools where I live... they admit 19% of their already high budget (one of the higher in the country) goes towards educating Illegals offspring. And they cry about not having anough money. Simple... get rid of the illegals, California loves them so much... a one way bus fare is cheap... send them over there. Then BAM... 19% of your budget is freed up.

They live 15 people to a three bedroom rental... most pay NO taxes... yet WE have to be bled dry to pay for what they aren't, and they don't even belong here, or even have the rioght to be here. Not fair at all.

Do you guys get a refund when you don't use the cops or don't have a fire?

Do you guys get a refund when you don't use the cops or don't have a fire?no... ever price a fire truck? I'm serious, I paid less for my house when I bought it. And I'm not in a cheap area.

My kids have never gotten into trouble, no school shootings have ever occurred in my city, and we're atheists!Disciplining your kids has nothing to do with religion... or lack thereof. It has everything to do with being a good parent, and not trying to be your kids best friend. Friends they get in school... they only have two parents (in most cases anyway).And I grew up in a household that was both Catholic AND Protestant. Basically raised as a protestant by my choice however. Yeah I was given that choice growing up.

Yes, it's about parenting and making that the priority. My post was simply to state that having prayer or mention of a god in school doesn't make a difference. It's the parents that make the difference.

I agree about the parenting. I think well behaved children are raised by parents who who don't let them get away with everything. Some kids don't have that. Your children and mine and a whole bunch of others are brought up to respect people. :)

They live 15 people to a three bedroom rental....most pay NO taxes....
How do you figure? Then NO renter pays taxes.

(Psssst. The landlord figures his property tax into the rent he charges. I've been a landlady. I know.)

How do you figure? Then NO renter pays taxes.

(Psssst. The landlord figures his property tax into the rent he charges. I've been a landlady. I know.)Yeah the property owner pays taxes on ONE house or Apartment... do those taxes cover the services consumed by 15 people? I think not.

Now, I am not exaggerating here, Where I live we DO have problems with large numbers of Illegals crowding homes, apartments etc... far in excess of legal occupancy standards, and the authorities do bust them... all the time. Because the cost of housing is so high, and so are the taxes.

Most Illegals work for cash, off the books and pay NO taxes... yet their kids suck our school districts dry, they clog our emergency rooms where they get treated and do NOT pay the bills leaving us the taxpayer to foot the costs. Many drive without a license.. without insurance and screw people when they cause an accident and don't pay for their damages. And by illegals... not all are hispanic. There are plenty of illegals from Russia, China, India, Pakistan etc, too. I mean ALL of them. Too many focus ONLY on the Hispanics... ignoring the others.

Best Damn speech I've heard in years... by a Judge... not a politician (politicians are all liars and cheats for the most part), people from outside the USA might not understand its significance however. Because its all about constitutional rights and limitations inposed on the government by the constitution.


YouTube - Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural rights Patriot Act - Part 3 of 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7n2m-X7OIuY)

Best Damn speech I've heard in years.....by a Judge...not a politician (politicians are all liars and cheats for the most part)


YouTube - Judge Andrew Napolitano Natural rights Patriot Act - Part 3 of 3 (http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=7n2m-X7OIuY)He's a liar and a crook.

He's a liar and a crook.

We already know Obama is a liar and Crook, he's a politician from Chicago... nuff said.. (they all are)... the Judge spells out what the others are doing as well. The constitution is really clear about the limits of the Federal giovernment... a concept liberals want to ignore.

How do you know when Obama is telling a lie? His lips are flapping.

We already know Obama is a liar and Crook, he's a politician from Chicago....nuff said..(they all are)....the Judge spells out what the others are doing as well. The constitution is really clear about the limits of the Federal giovernment.....a concept liberals want to ignore.

How do you know when Obama is telling a lie? His lips are flapping.

I meant Napalitano. Try to keep up. You paint with the very wide brush don't you: all liberals are this, all liberals are that, all Chicago politicians are this... and it's always soemthing very negative. Why do feel the need to do this? You don't believe that people are individuals?

Hey... Obama is CLEARLY violating the constitution... anyone who can read the constitution knows Federal power is not unklimited or all encompassing... and it never was form the beginning.

However I've never seen any proof what-so-ever presented that discredits a single word of Napolitanos speech.

Gee, Obama, Mayor Daily... Blogdonovich there's three... can you name a single honest CHicago politician that WASN'T in trouble over doing something they weren't supposed to do?

Besides... most people who identify as liberal, believe ONLY what the DNC tells them to believe... even when presented proof. Hell, closer to home (where I reside), look at Marrion Berry. Democrat... caught ON VIDEO, smoking Crack Coccain in a hotel with a convicted Prostitute... whining he was set up... and democrats agreeing he was set up... and 20 some years later STILL do long after he served his time...

Yeah there are individuals out there... but sadly there are far too many people that think they are owed entitlements, yet pay no taxes... and now expect free health care the rest of us are supposed to pay for. Liberals just happen to be who most of them identify with.


I happen to be sick and damn tired of paying for them... get a job, make a sacrifice like the rest of us. And screw the illegals... I don't give a damn if they die in the gutter, I have my own bills nobody is helping ME pay. Including trying to save for a retirement since they give SSI to people that never workded a day in their life much less paid into it... I've been paying into for 30 years now I may never see a dime of.

Hell I don't even have my own cell phone because I need that money for other stuff... but when was the last time you saw a poor person WITHOUT a cell phone? Hell even the illegals have cell phones...

I'm so ticked off, I will sell my extra stuff on eBay... or shred it before it goes in the trash... if they are going to tax me exen more so the lazy don't have to sacrifice... I'll be damned if I will give them my stuff free any longer. Yeah it's a lower tax deduction... but hell, It would be worth it. I have to buy my own health care... let them buy their own... not extort it out of me. ANd yeah... my charitible donations in the past were never insignificant... but they will be... like ZERO. Lazy bums getting free health care I have to pay for BY FORCE on top of my own... screw them all.

And oh yeah... I am so fired up over this... you would not imagine. It's a world class sore point with me right now... over and above anything and everything else.


Sorry Karma... so you know this isn't directed at you... you can't imagine how irritated I am over this right now. I'm barely keeping my head above the water right now... without this new crap.

High School droppouts made that choice... they have to live with it... I am not going to joyfully part with MY hard earned money without a fight. I busted my butt, graduated... paid my own way through college with NO help from the government because I was too white... spent a decade paying off those loans.. clawed my way to where I am now... and some liberals think I should be sharing what I have with someone who never made the effort to better themselves... huff huff... grrrrrrrrrrrr...

he's a politician from Chicago
Actually, no, he's not. He was never a politician in Daley's machine. He dealt with it as a community organizer to improve Chicago South Side neighborhoods.

I came out here to college in 1963 and never left the area. I have no love for Daley or his minions, and, thank God, have never lived in Chicago so that Daley or his father was my mayor.

Obama is not a product of Chicago politics. His political experience is in the 'hoods and as a state senator.

Hey Smoothy:
Republican Sex Offenders (http://www.republicansexoffenders.com/)

Here's a small excerpt

# Republican congressman and anti-gay activist Robert Bauman was charged with having sex with a 16-year-old boy he picked up at a gay bar.
# Republican Committee Chairman Jeffrey Patti was arrested for distributing a video clip of a 5-year-old girl being raped.
# Republican activist Marty Glickman (a.k.a. "Republican Marty"), was taken into custody by Florida police on four counts of unlawful sexual activity with an underage girl and one count of delivering the drug LSD.
# Republican legislative aide Howard L. Brooks was charged with molesting a 12-year old boy and possession of child pornography.
# Republican Senate candidate John Hathaway was accused of having sex with his 12-year old baby sitter and withdrew his candidacy after the allegations were reported in the media.
# Republican preacher Stephen White, who demanded a return to traditional values, was sentenced prison after offering $20 to a 14-year-old boy for permission to perform oral sex on him.
# Republican talk show host Jon Matthews pleaded guilty to exposing his genitals to an 11 year old girl.
# Republican anti-gay activist Earl "Butch" Kimmerling was sentenced to 40 years in prison for molesting an 8-year old girl after he attempted to stop a gay couple from adopting her.
# Republican Party leader Paul Ingram pleaded guilty to six counts of raping his daughters and served 14 years in federal prison.
# Republican election board official Kevin Coan was sentenced to two years probation for soliciting sex over the internet from a 14-year old girl.
# Republican politician Andrew Buhr was charged with two counts of first degree sodomy with a 13-year old boy.
# Republican legislator Keith Westmoreland was arrested on seven felony counts of lewd and lascivious exhibition to girls under the age of 16 (i.e. exposing himself to children).
# Republican anti-abortion activist John Allen Burt was found guilty of molesting a 15-year old girl.
# Republican County Councilman Keola Child's pleaded guilty to molesting a male child.
# Republican activist John Butler was charged with criminal sexual assault on a teenage girl.
# Republican candidate Richard Gardner admitted to molesting his two daughters.
# Republican Councilman and former Marine Jack W. Gardner was convicted of molesting a 13-year old girl.
# Republican County Commissioner Merrill Robert Barter pleaded guilty to unlawful sexual contact and assault on a teenage boy.
# Republican City Councilman Fred C. Smeltzer, Jr. pleaded no contest to raping a 15 year-old girl and served 6-months in prison.
# Republican activist Parker J. Bena pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography on his home computer and was sentenced to 30 months in federal prison and fined $18,000.

Barney Frank is still in office... do you care?

THat goes to show the integrity of the Democratic Party...

Durban... bibes, kickbacks

Half of Obamas Czars are Tax cheats... yet silence from the Democrat party...

TheTimothy Geitner... head of the treasury and thus IRS is a Tax cheat... well documented... and PROVEN. Democrats act like it was a parking ticket.

When the Democrats clean up their hours RIGHT now... then worry about lesser people.

Or does the Democrat party excommunicate people who point at the would class cheats and thieves in their own party they turn a blind eye to?

How About Charles Rangal from New York... tax cheat, no calls from even one democrat to kick him out...

Yeah... right. Democrats are allowed to do whatever they want... and they are defended by the democrats who protect them...

Yeah... you want me to have respect for them? Lets see them do to their own offenders what they HAVE done to Republicans in the past... THEN I might start to care.

Actually, no, he's not. He was never a politician in Daley's machine. He dealt with it as a community organizer to improve Chicago South Side neighborhoods.

I came out here to college in 1963 and never left the area. I have no love for Daley or his minions, and, thank God, have never lived in Chicago so that Daley or his father was my mayor.

Obama is not a product of Chicago politics. His political experience is in the 'hoods and as a state senator.Um... HE has a HOUSE in Chicago area... He was a State Senator in that area... he got into politics in Chicago...

Daley was a world class crook, no doubt... and the entire Chicago political Machine is well know to be crooked. It always has been hell it might always bee without major changes in mindset there... and there isn't one thing Obama ever improved for anybody... most of those projects he fought to make US taxpayers pay for,, not Illinois taxpayers... were riddled with corruption and never completed and a huge waste of tax dollars. Good times wasn't a slice of real life. Made a great TV show ( I still like it)... but most slum dwellers aren't like that fictitious family.


Incidentally I grew up poor... I know too many poor people NOW for someone to pull the wool over my eyes about reality there. Most think they are entitled to everything, and have little respect for anything that's not their own. And yeah... they tear the hell out of housing projects or even sect 8 housing. A handfull might not... but that's true for most of them.

You have far more opportunity in a Chicago Project than you do in Rural Alabama or West Virginia... as a poor person.

Look up Appalachia... I know the culture well.

Um...HE has a HOUSE in Chicago area....He was a State Senator in that area....he got into politics in Chicago...

Daley was a world class crook, no doubt .....and the entire Chicago political Machine is well know to be crooked. It always has been hell it might always bee without major changes in mindset there....and there isn't one thing Obama ever improved for anybody....most of those projects he fought to make US taxpayers pay for,,,,not Illinois taxpayers....were riddled with corruption and never completed and a huge waste of tax dollars. Good times wasn't a slice of real life. Made a great TV show ( I still like it)....but most slum dwellers aren't like that ficticious family.


Incidently I grew up poor.....I know too many poor people NOW for someone to pull the wool over my eyes about reality there. Most think they are entitled to everything, and have little respect for anything thats not their own. And yeah...they tear the hell out of housing projects or even sect 8 housing. A handfull might not....but thats true for most of them.

You have far more opportunity in a Chicago Project than you do in Rural Alabama or West Virginia....as a poor person.

Look up Appalachia....I know the culture well.
I'm a Tar Heel, was born and raised in NC and grew up in the hills of Appalachia. As a preacher's family, we were poorer than dirt, so you can't tell me anything about being poor.

Obama didn't "get into politics" in Chicago. He was never part of that crowd. Durbin, a state senator, finally convinced him to run for president. It was Durbin's idea in the first place.

Obama owns a house in Chicago. That makes him bad?

I'm a Tar Heel, was born and raised in NC and grew up in the hills of Appalachia. As a preacher's family, we were poorer than dirt, so you can't tell me anything about being poor.

Obama didn't "get into politics" in Chicago. He was never part of that crowd. Durbin, a state senator, finally convinced him to run for president. It was Durbin's idea in the first place.

Obama owns a house in Chicago. That makes him bad?Well the people he bought that property from, and his terrorist buddies makes him bad...

You gave me another reason to hate Durbin...

Well the people he bought that property from, and his terrorist buddies makes him bad.....

You gave me another reason to hate Durbin.....
I bought my property from a hunter who delights in killing animals. That makes me bad?

He has no terrorist buddies. *yawn* Get over that.

Actually, Durbin has been a good senator. We've had a few who weren't. A few icky governors too...

And there WG I have to disagree with you. It is well documented who and what sorts of people Nobamas connected with. Terrorist Ayres is only the tip of the ice berg. He got a sweatheart deal on his house because of connections. Why is it he has never released his real birth certificate? Is it because he was actually born in Africa?

And there WG I have to disagree with you. It is well documented who and what sorts of people Nobamas connected with. Terrorist Ayres is only the tip of the ice berg. He got a sweatheart deal on his house because of connections. Why is it he has never released his real birth certificate? Is it because he was actually born in Africa?
Hahhahahahahahhahahahahahhahahahah!!

And there WG I have to disagree with you. It is well documented who and what sorts of people Nobamas connected with. Terrorist Ayres is only the tip of the ice berg. He got a sweatheart deal on his house because of connections. Why is it he has never released his real birth certificate? Is it because he was actually born in Africa?
Those stories have all been debunked countless times.

A "sweatheart deal" -- like in the gym? Sweat? It's sweetheart deal, and no, that isn't true. Even the seller came forward to explain how the house-buying deal was done.

And you're going to believe the papers Obama produces are the real deal?

I set up a separate link to this answer because of the frequency I have to link to it.

...

Regarding Obama's birth certificate ;


Currently, Title 8 of the U.S. CodeSec 1401 defines the following as people who are "citizens of the United States at birth":

Anyone born inside the United States

Any Indian or Eskimo born in the United States, provided being a citizen of the U.S. does not impair the person's status as a citizen of the tribe

Any one born outside the United States, both of whose parents are citizens of the U.S. as long as one parent has lived in the U.S.

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year and the other parent is a U.S. national

Any one born in a U.S. possession, if one parent is a citizen and lived in the U.S. for at least one year
Any one found in the U.S. under the age of five, whose parentage cannot be determined, as long as proof of non-citizenship is not provided by age 21

Any one born outside the United States, if one parent is an alien and as long as the other parent is a citizen of the U.S. who lived in the U.S. for at least five years (with military and diplomatic service included in this time)

A final, historical condition: a person born before 5/24/1934 of an alien father and a U.S. citizen mother who has lived in the U.S.

So even if the evidence shows that he was born outside the US and his Hawaii birth certificate was a fraud ;he would still be qualified .

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/ineligible-candidate-275470.html

So even if the evidence shows that [President Obama] was born outside the US and his Hawaii birth certificate was a fraud ;he would still be qualified .

https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/politics/ineligible-candidate-275470.html
I'm starting to fall in love with you.

:p

I bought my property from a hunter who delights in killing animals. That makes me bad?

He has no terrorist buddies. *yawn* Get over that.

Actually, Durbin has been a good senator. We've had a few who weren't. A few icky governors too....Bill Ayers... was a close friend to Obama... Obama got his start in politics in Bill Ayers home... Bill Ayers actually spent time in jail for a bombing he did with the Weather Underground. THere is no speculation on that... its all been proven.

The sweetheart deal Obama got on his peoperty was with another close friend who recently went to jail for a lot of years for his criminal activity.

The list of crooks and criminals in Obamas administration is long...

If you didn't pay your taxes for a number of years... at all... what would happen to you as an average citizen? It wouldn't be pretty... right... fines, penalties, jailtime...

But if you have connections to Obama you get offered the chance to run the entire treasury Dept... INCLUDING running the IRS. Who other than a Democrat would appoint a proven tax cheat to head the IRS. And who other than democrats would think its OK... as long as the tax cheat was a Democrat as well. And all of the other tax cheats he nominated... and Democrats looked the other way on.


Now if Bush had appointed a tax cheat to run that... could you imagine the colective crying and screaming from the democrat party?

Yet Obama does it REPEATEDLY... and the democrats response is... So what..

Look up Culture of Corruption in the Dictionary... you will find the pictures of Obama, Pelosi and Reed.


Hipocrits... Hipocrits every one of them. THey hold No one in their party accountible for their criminal actions...

You're an angry man/woman.

You're an angry man/woman.

I'm a VERY angry... MAN.


What's wrong with Democrats... Obamas been in Office for OVER a year... and NOTHING is his fault... he's perfect... everything is Bushes fault... never mind the fact he hasn't been in office for well over a year... and the fact that DEMOCRATS have had a Congressional Majority for the last 3+ years now, and the Senate too... NOT the republicans.

So the Democrats are to blame for what's happened the last 3+ years. THey aren't off the hook just because Bush signed something.. everything done the last 3+ years was written, and pushed by the Democrats... time for them to step up to the plate... and accept the blame rather than point fingers like elementery schoolchildren

Have a nice cup of tea and go for a walk. Try not to hate people so much.

Have a nice cup of tea and go for a walk. Try not to hate people so much.I don't hate people in general... I just hate CERTAIN people. Usually the ones that get intrusive into MY life because they obviously figure they can't get their own in order so they screw with others to ruin theirs too. And those that think they are entitled to anything at someone else's expense.

Ok, good luck with that.

Bill Ayers... was a close friend to Obama
That is not true and has been proven over and over again.

... Obama got his start in politics in Bill Ayers home
And I went to a Tupperware party at Sharon A's house in 1986 and her husband is now in jail for molesting little neighbor kids, so what does that make me?

... Bill Ayers actually spent time in jail for a bombing he did with the Weather Underground. THere is no speculation on that... its all been proven.
Gosh, that's a page out of history. So?

The sweetheart deal Obama got on his peoperty
It was no sweetheart deal (glad you're finally spelling "sweetheart" correctly). The seller finally revealed who he is and explained the whole process. And it wasn't much of a deal, actually. Look up the real story (it's a matter of public record) and stop listening to people who want to incite.

That is not true and has been proven over and over again.Hello again, WG:

Pssst. He's a birther. He believes what he wants to believe.

excon

So is this terrorism? I think it is.

Democrats fear for their families - Jake Sherman - POLITICO.com (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34983_Page2.html)

That is not true and has been proven over and over again.

And I went to a Tupperware party at Sharon A's house in 1986 and her husband is now in jail for molesting little neighbor kids, so what does that make me?

Gosh, that's a page out of history. So?

It was no sweetheart deal (glad you're finally spelling "sweetheart" correctly). The seller finally revealed who he is and expained the whole process. And it wasn't much of a deal, actually. Look up the real story (it's a matter of public record) and stop listening to people who want to incite.

Who proved it wrong? Democrat propagandists? The same people who claim Socialized medicine will save money... even after Hireing 12,000 NEW IRS auditers to make sure everyone pays what they are told to pay or else... so the lazy can have their free health care while the rest of us get the money tp pay for it extorted from us on payday... OBAMA himself has said they were friends... there are very few people who believe otherwise. Simple Google searchs provides ample evidence of his ties with Ayers... Nobody is saying Obama was IN the weather Underground... he was too young for that.


And he did get a sweetheart deal... from a now convicted fellon.

Hello again, WG:

Pssst. He's a birther. He believes what he wants to believe.

exconReally... Just like the people that think Obama is the Messiah... a saint... and never did anything wrong in his life... ever.

They believe he makes Mother Terresa look like a brothel Maddam.

Even when its on film... audio tape... or in writing. Like the rascist comments he made repeatedly in his TWO autobiiographies (if that doesn't prove arrogance, then arrogance doesn't exist... anywhere)


Incidentally... can you name 3 people who are not affiliated with the Democratic party that has actually SEEN that birth Certificate in person?


Hmmmmmmmm. Still waiting. I don't need to see it... I want three Republicans who have actually seen it... Democrat Politicians are genetically incapible of speaking the truth. They've recently proven that. Hell Nancy Pelosi is completely incapible of separating the fantasy world from Reality.


Besides... where are his college records... the left claims he is so smart... lets see the proof. He is the Dumbest man walking the earth as far as I have seen... I want to see his grades in College.



There is spin (and a spin is a half-lie)... but a Full-lie is still a lie.

Smoothy I don't know if the Obama got a great deal on a house. What I want to know is if someone gave you smoothy a great deal on a house would you or would you not take it?

Democrat Politicians are genetically incapible of speaking the truth. Yes comrade smoothy... and all republicans politicians are gay and like to touch little boys.

Really... Just like the people that think Obama is the Messiah... a saint... and never did anything wrong in his life... ever.
He's human and has made mistakes (just like you and me). One of his biggest as far as I'm concerned is that he is trying to appease the Republicans and is being too wimpy. He should just ram stuff through in order to get it done.

Like the rascist comments he made repeatedly in his TWO autobiiographies (if that doesn't prove arrogance, then arrogance doesn't exist... anywhere)
And your posts (and terrible spelling) cause me to think what about you?

I want three Republicans who have actually seen it
Then you will apologize?

Besides... where are his college records... the left claims he is so smart... lets see the proof. He is the Dumbest man walking the earth as far as I have seen... I want to see his grades in College.
You haven't heard him speak extemporaneously? You haven't read his books and had to look up words (oh, yeah, ghostwriters with thesauruses... )? He always amazes me how well he does his homework -- can talk with no hitch about situations in cities and tiny countries I (and I'm sure you) have never even heard of, can talk about financial stuff and make even ME understand, speaks in complete sentences with good grammar, pronounces words (including "nuclear") and geographical place names correctly. You do have to give him credit for being smart.

Yes comrade smoothy...and all republicans politicians are gay and like to touch little boys.

Barney Frank is still serving so obviously that's not a concern to them.

Hmmmmmmmm. Still waiting. I don't need to see it....I want three Republicans who have actually seen it....


Tom has already posted the law are you to wrapped up in a lie to comprehend what the law says!

Wondergirl. Actually I have questions about the authorship of at least his 1st book. At minimum Bill Ayers gets a big assist.

The questions of his college record are intriguing . I for one would enjoy reading any thesis, or anything he authored as President of the Harvard Law Review. In fact;being a professor and all that ;there is a surprising lack of paper trail.
(do I still feel the love ?)

He's human and has made mistakes (just like you and me). One of his biggest as far as I'm concerned is that he is trying to appease the Republicans and is being too wimpy. He should just ram stuff through in order to get it done.

And your posts (and terrible spelling) cause me to think what about you?

Then you will apologize?

You haven't heard him speak extemporaneously? You haven't read his books and had to look up words (oh, yeah, ghostwriters with thesauruses....)? He always amazes me how well he does his homework -- can talk with no hitch about situations in cities and tiny countries I (and I'm sure you) have never even heard of, can talk about financial stuff and make even ME understand, speaks in complete sentences with good grammar, pronounces words (including "nuclear") and geographical place names correctly. You do have to give him credit for being smart.



There is spin (and a spin is a half-lie)......but a Full-lie is still a lie.[/QUOTE]

I'm not appologizing to or for Obama... the man has Finally made Jimmy Carter look like a saint rather than an idiot. No Longer will Jimmy Carter be remembered as the idiot president... Obama has that spot now.

Someone in the Democrat party teach that Idiot in the Whitehouse basic finances and what a buget is and how to balance his checkbook. Nobody ever taught him that yet, obviously.

I have the RIGHT to my earnings... not some lazy SOB who never finished high school... thinks they are entitled to welfare as they pump out (or help make) kid after kid whi wll also be allowed to roam the streets and steal what they want because heaven forbid they got off their lazy butts and got a job.

But no... they think Drug Dealing and Car-jacking are acceptable vocations. Because they are entitled to big money without real work.

Heaven forbid they make sacrifices and buy their own medical insurance... because they would have to give up all the cell phones in the house... maybe their all inclusive cable TV subscriptions... or have to start cooking and eating at home... or gasp... live within their means.



Personally... while I don't condone the violence threats that are happening... I understand them all too well.

MOST polls show the MAJORITY... dislikes... actually HATES the crap Dumbo ears is trying to ram down our throats... and if it continues... trust me... its going to get really ugly. THere are that many people out there that are fed up with Bozo the Telepromter reading buffoon... who thanks to the actions of the democrats the last two years really have little left to lose...

Nope I'm not one of them... but quite honestly... I'm not going to fault them either...


Strange how the Democraps who 40 years ago were the ones who were so worried about big brother... have not only became Big brother on steroids... but have made George Orwells 1984 become reality.


Hope you like the local Politically appointed medical board decide who has been a good enough party member to get that operation they need... orif they will be denied because they expressed an opinion the party disapproves of.

Because Comrad Obama wanted this... and you bought into it... you will now have elected officials determining who does and who doesn't get medical treatment...

And sit there now and tell me there is NO possible way that who gets coverage and who doesn't won't be politicized?



And incidentally... I don't have a functioning spell checker and can't have one as its blocked on this machine... and that set as a superadmin from a policy I can't edit even as a local admin. If you understand Active Directory and administered Domains it will make sense.

Yeah I'll get a few words wrong... too bad, that's how it is. I'm a crappy typist. Never claimed otherwise. And I'm an engineer... not an english major.

its going to get really ugly. THere are that many people out there that are fed up with Bozo the Telepromter reading buffoon...who thanks to the actions of the democrats the last two years really have little left to lose......Hello again, Smoothy:

I believe you. You are a poster boy for the tea baggers, for FOX news, for Glenn Beck, for Sarah Palin, for the birthers and god knows who else. Although you say you're not one of them, if the sh*t hits the fan, you'd be on THEIR side, and not that of your country.

We've been split before and had to fight it out. I'm ready too.

excon

PS> Are you saying Tim McVeigh had it right?

MOST polls show the MAJORITY...dislikes...actually HATES the crap Dumbo ears is trying to ram down our throats.....and if it continues....trust me....its going to get really ugly. THere are that many people out there that are fed up with Bozo the Telepromter reading buffoon...who thanks to the actions of the democrats the last two years really have little left to lose......You are a name-calling child who is often wrong:
The immediate effect of the past few days' events in Washington has been a gradual increase in President Barack Obama's job approval in the daily tracking surveys of the Gallup Poll. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2010/03/obamas-poll-numbers-gallup-healthcare-.html)

Hello again, Smoothy:

I believe you. You are a poster boy for the tea baggers, for FOX news, for Glenn Beck, for Sarah Palin, for the birthers and god knows who else. Although you say you're not one of them, if the sh*t hits the fan, you'd be on THEIR side, and not your county

Are you saying Tim McVeigh had it right? We've been split before and had to fight it out. I'm ready too.

excon No Tim McVeigh had a legitimate fight... but he took the wrong action without a doubt. You don't bring a gun to a debate and expect to walk away the winner. You may walk away... but it won't be as the winner.

It wasn't an appropriate action for him to have made given the circumstances. Had it been gove thugs coming to violate the 2nd amendment rights of americans by disarming the population illegally... I would think differently. THAT was most definitely NOT the case.

If it ever disolves to a shooting war (which I hope it doesn't)... then its everything goes. Not before then.


Incidentally... THEY are on the side of the constitution... which the Democraps view as an obstruction to their agenda... they need to actually read it sometime... its NOT a sugested guideline... It spells out what the Feds can and can not do really clearly, And our rights.


I will fight anyone who tries to take away the constitution and our rights... because THEY aren't real Americans. Doesn't matter where they were born.

You are a name-calling child who is often wrong:
The immediate effect of the past few days' events in Washington has been a gradual increase in President Barack Obama's job approval in the daily tracking surveys of the Gallup Poll. (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2010/03/obamas-poll-numbers-gallup-healthcare-.html)

Sorry... THe Democraps started it when they called me (not directly, but by association) names...

I bet you forgot so I provided a link...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTxXUufI3jA

Its in his own voice... not a transcript.

He tossed the first grenade... and I was never personally appologized to for his derogatory remarks... and since he is not a living God like the left believes... I am still waiting for his apology.

As far as I'm concerned.. we are stuck with him for another few years... unless we can impeach him and toss him in jail sooner.

This isn't North Korea... and he isn't the Dear Leader.

And quite honestly... given the succession of command, as long as Nancy Pelosi is Still speaker of the house... I'd rather Obama be in his position than she advance closer to it. So we really better hope he doesn't get caught doing something and impeached.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_line_of_succession

Heaven help us all if that lunatic ever gets closer to the presidency than she is now. Obama might be clueless... but she's brainless and far more dangerous if she was ever given the power.

Ever wonder why she can run upalmost $101Kin Booze bills just flying back and forth to California? Does she have a liver the size of a Volkswagen?

Link to the actual bills... http://action.afa.net/Detail.aspx?id=2147491564

So you see as much as I hate him... we are better off with him then anyone who would succeed him if he left for any reason.

Talk about being between a rock and a hard place.

I see the bible has served you well, Jesus would be ashamed.

I see the bible has served you well, Jesus would be ashamed.

Says you... I'm a protestant... I don't worship a man.


Incidentally as a protestant... I don't follow the Pope... nor do I plan to be a high level church official.

Exactly where in the Bible are you required to be a sucker to con men? I missed that part.


I'm comfortible answering to St Peter when my day comes for my actions here on earth. Are you?

Some would say if you believe in a religion you have already been suckered by con men.

Incidentally... THEY are on the side of the constitution... which the Democraps view as an obstruction to their agenda... they need to actually read it sometime... its NOT a sugested guideline... It spells out what the Feds can and can not do really clearly, And our rights.

I will fight anyone who tries to take away the constitution and our rights... because THEY aren't real Americans. Doesn't matter where they were born.Hello again, smoothy:

This is a recent response I made to speechless.

MY grasp of history?? Dude!

Let me see.. Under George W. Bush, the 5th Amendment to the Constitution went into the toilet. That's where you'd find habeas corpus that Bush took away. Then he massacred the 4th Amendment when he violated FISA, and gave the NSA permission to listen to ALL of our phone calls and read our emails.. Then he blasted the 1st Amendment when he created "free speech zones" whenever he was in town. He forgot that the entire country IS a free speech zone. Then he threw the 6th Amendment into the crapper when he endorsed secret trials. He destroyed the 8th Amendment when he said we should torture... I could go on...

Nope. All in all, I'd say YOU guy's did a pretty good job of destroying the Constitution and any freedom we had.I didn't hear you complaining about the Constitution then.

So, you got YOUR view of what the Constitution says, and I got MINE. They AIN'T the same.

Excon

Hello again, smoothy:

This is a recent response I made to speechless.
I didn't hear you complaining about the Constitution then.

So, you got YOUR view of what the Constitution says, and I got MINE. They AIN'T the same.

excon

And any of that has improved under Obama how?


And the Constitution ISN'T optional guidelines. Its written in plain English... Unlike the tax codes.

Some would say if you believe in a religion you have already been suckered by con men.True...



Look at it this way... If I'm right... I'm set. If I picked the wrong religion, well that's how it goes, If your right... we'll never know because it just ends with your final breath.

Neither of us are embarking on some fool Jihad...

And no... I don't believe on knocking on doors pestering people like the Jehovah Witnesses either.

True...



Look at it this way......If I'm right...I'm set. If I picked the wrong religion, well thats how it goes, If your right....we'll never know because it just ends with your final breath.

Neither of us are embarking on some fool Jihad....

and no....I don't believe on knocking on doors pestering people like the Jehovah Witnesses either.

Oh I didn't think you did knock on peoples doors or trying to start a Jihad. And I am fine with everything ending on my final breath.

And any of that has improved under Obama how?Hello again, smoothy:

Not much.. But, that only proves he's more right wing than left.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Not much.. But, that only proves he's more right wing than left.

exconHe has two directions... left and more left.


I'm not claiming Republicans are perfect... they aren't.

But this idiot is bound and determined to cause another Civil war... by stealing from the productive members of society to give it to the lazy portion of society... for no other reason than to buy votes.

Because its clear... he's crossed a line that should never be crossed... look at the threats that are coming in to so many people from so many people... people that work for a living being tired of being told THEY have to support housing project dwellers who think they are too good to break a sweat earning a dollar.

They are beyond upset... and yeah... I will agree they should NOT be making actual threats , but should be expressing their extreme dislike of the left figuratively putting a gun to our heads and stealing our money. THreats are not protected speech... expressing your dislike, distrusts... and contempt for someone who arrogantly ignores the majority IS protected speech.

I was always a believer in do what you have to do... but you don't advertise you are going to do it first. But yeah, you can express your displeasure freely. Its our right to do that.

And most of the Democrat do what he tells them to do... knowing it will likely cost them the next election. Which makes me wonder exactly WHAT threats they are using, to make them do what they know their constituents DON'T want that WILL cost them their jobs in many cases.

You do remember FIlegate... and How Hillary Clinton somehow managed to stay out of jail with all the laws that were broke there including contempt of court for hiding files and claiming she did know where they were... when they were in the Whitehouse Bedroom the whole time.

Just because charges aren't filed... doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed... if you know the right people... you get away with murder. AKA Vincent Foster. (just a disclaimer... Obama had nothing to do with Filegate or Vincent Fosters Murder)

Portable marquee sign seen in Dumas, Texas:

ZOO HAS AFRICAN LION
WHITEHOUSE HAS LYIN AFRICAN

Portable marquee sign seen in Dumas, Texas:

ZOO HAS AFRICAN LION
WHITEHOUSE HAS LYIN AFRICAN

Gal, you seem to sink lower every time you post.

gal, you seem to sink lower every time you post.

I merely report what has been seen, and I'm a baaaad boy!

Otherwise,

When did Obama tell the truth?

Betcha you can't name any.

Says it all... :D

says it all.....:d

No!

no!

If you aren't yet, you will be... your taxes WILL be going up this year... to fund this unconstitutional monstrosity.


Obama and the democrats make the stereotypical drunken sailor look fiscally responsible.

no!
Don't feed the troll.

Says it all.....:DHello again, smoothy:

Then you DO support the ruination of the Constitution that occurred under Bush. I documented every single time when your boy did it, and I didn't hear a peep out of you. Now, you have the balls to make accusations about Obama. Dude!

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Then you DO support the ruination of the Constitution that occurred under Bush. I documented every single time when your boy did it, and I didn't hear a peep out of you. Now, you have the balls to make accusations about Obama. Dude!

excon

So... YOu actully WANT to give terrorists rights? Exactly where in the constitution are non-americans who are killing americans given ANY rights?

Exactly where in the constitution are ANYONE who are not americans and not in the USA given any rights?


I can't find the part where foreign terrorists have a right to privacy, or the right to kill Americans unimpeaded.

And NOTHING Bush did was even 10% as bad as what bobobama has done so far...

Don't feed the troll.The Troll is in the Whitehouse...

And contrary to what the left believes... he deserves NO more respect than was given to Bush by the left.

So......YOu actully WANT to give terrorists rights?Hello again, smoothy:

Here's the part you tea baggers don't understand, even though you said the words. The Constitution isn't a guide line. It's the LAW. So, it's not a matter of what I want or what you want. It's a matter of what the Constitution DEMANDS.

Like I said earlier. You have YOUR view of what the Constitution says, and I have MINE. They ain't the same. They ain't even close.

excon

If you aren't yet, you will be.....your taxes WILL be going up this year....
If they don't, will you apologize?

Hello again, smoothy:

Here's the part you tea baggers don't understand, even though you said the words. The Constitution isn't a guide line. It's the LAW. So, it's not a matter of what I want or what you want. It's a matter of what the Constitution DEMANDS.

Like I said earlier. You have YOUR view of what the Constitution says, and I have MINE. They ain't the same. They ain't even close.

excon

You worry about evesdroppiing on terrorists overseas... but you WANT to hand your medical records and control over what you can and can't get for treatment to the Government? Do you not see the problem with your argument here? WHat is more private than your personal medical history... far more than anything you will say over a phone I'll tell you. And incidentally... if you are talking with terrorists... then you should be listened to.

Exactly where in the constitution does #1, they Federal Government have that power... and contrary to what you beielve... the powers that the Federal government are limited to certain things... and everything else is reserved for the states... THAT is clearly spelled out.


Nowhere is the privacy of terrorists to plan terrorist acts from overseas free from the US government evesdropping.


There is you no believe what's in it ot not... its written in plain english... not legaleeze. And its really clear...



And incidentally... the Fifth amendment does not apply for foreign terrorists committing what they cionsider an act of war... particularly on foreign soil.

You have to be American and do it on American soil... Are you subject or expect to be extradited to North Korea because you violate THEIR law of offending the Dear Leader by calling him a meglomanic pipsqueak with a puffy hairdo? Because that gate swings both ways...

Not sure about a tax increase this year. But there are targeted increases that do go into effect in 2011 ;and many of them affect the people the President pledged would not have tax increases (anyone under $200,000 income)

Have not had a chance to look totally into it but a quick search reveals that Americans will no longer be able to use pre-tax dollars from health savings accounts ,flexible spending accounts ,or health reimbursements accounts to buy OTC non-prescription medicines.
The new law increases the tax from 10 %to 20 % for non-medical early withdrawals from a health savings account for those under the age of 65.
Many small business people with incomes under $200,000 will be hard hit by the mandates . I call that a tax increase if you don't .The Social Security cap will be gone so that is another tax increase.The deductability of medical expenses kicks in at 10% under the new law instead of the current 7.5%
Taxes on drug and medical device mfg will be passed on to the consumer so that is an additional indirect tax.
That's a heck of a lot of tax increases for a bill that the President said (at the signing ceremony) “And this represents the largest middle-class tax cut for health care in our history.”

You worry about evesdroppiing on terrorists overseas.....Hello again, smoothy:

You are misinformed. The NSA listens to ALL of our phone calls and reads ALL of our emails. FISA was violated at EVERY step. It's been ADMITTED to by the Bush administration.

But, this sounds like the birth certificate argument all over again. You're not going to believe MY information, any more than I believe the swill you learned on FOX. Let's just leave it at that.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

You are misinformed. The NSA listens to ALL of our phone calls and reads ALL of our emails. FISA was violated at EVERY step. It's been ADMITTED to by the Bush administration.

But, this sounds like the birth certificate argument all over again. You're not gonna believe MY information, any more than I believe the swill you learned on FOX. Let's just leave it at that.

exconReally... incidently THAT started under Clinton... and do you really have a clue about how that system works? What id does, can, and can't do? Seriously, do you? And that is more private than yours amd everyone's medical records exactly how? Because you won't and CAN'T get those sorts of details on any phone call.

Man we get a hell of a laugh when the left starts rattling off about that... Like a Drum Major trying to explain Neurosurgery...

I really want to hear this...

Because I can guarantee you that I know 1,000 Percent more than you do on that topic or any of the half-wit left wing journalists that don't know the difference between a DACS and a PBX... you are talking about a job field I've been doing for decades.


Do I know everything there is to know in the field... no. Nobody does. But this is a field I've been involved in from one aspect or other for 30 years now, in different capacities in differing jobs. And to do my job you need many years of direct experience... you can't teach a newbie this job... not at this level.


Nothing personal... but this is like arguing medical stuff with J-9. This is our bread and butter.

You are misinformed. The NSA listens to ALL of our phone calls and reads ALL of our emails. FISA was violated at EVERY step. It's been ADMITTED to by the Bush administration.

Why do you keep harping on this, Ex. It's only been going on since shortly after Bell invented the telephone. Even George Carlin talked about wiretapping in '72. Amazon.com: Class Clown: George Carlin: Music (http://www.amazon.com/Class-Clown-George-Carlin/dp/B002GHHHBK)

do you really have a clue about how that system works? What id does, can, and can't do? Seriously, do you? Hello again, smoothy:

Uhhh, yes.

excon

If they don't, will you apologize?

They already said they will... do you still believe nobody making less than $250K will pay a dime extra. Even Obama doesn't stand behind that comment.

Hello again, smoothy:

Uhhh, yes.

exconReally... care to elaborate a bit... rather than the propaganda you saw on a PBS special.

Which was half truths and paranoia along with a heavy dose of pure BS of how the Telecom infrastructure actually is set up with NO specifics to anyone that knows anyting about the field.


Because I can tell every single piece of equipment on a circuit between Hoboken NJ and Timbuktu, the ENTIRE way... change its settings or shut it down. As long as I know specifics about a particular segment.

Obviously not EVERY one of the bearers... but maybe 50% of what exists in the USA, and 100% of what certain carriers have.

I do this stuff every day... finding and fixing problems that can be anywhere in the world, or isolating it to a specific area and referring it out to a tech local to the problem. Even if its in another Country.


I think some of those people so paranoid need to break out the alluminum foil and make hats so their thoughts can't be scanned too.

Really.........care to elaborate a bit.....rather than the propaganda you saw on a PBS special.Hello again, smoothy:

Instead, let's approach it from this direction. Given your background, would you say that it's technically feasible for the government to intercept ALL our phone calls and ALL our emails?

excon

Because I can tell every single piece of equipment on a circuit between Hoboken NJ and Timbuktu, the ENTIRE wayMy father worked for telco all his life and I worked in cableco for a while and now I'm pretty handy with the internet and the IP protocol; I'd like to hear this equipment listing - go!

Hello again, smoothy:

Instead, let's approach it from this direction. Given your background, would you say that it's technically feasable for the government to intercept ALL our phone calls and ALL our emails?

excon

You need to be far more specific than that... there is a big difference between knowing whom everyone called... and knowing what everyone was saying.

And opposite answers to both.

My father worked for telco all his life and I worked in cableco for a while and now I'm pretty handy with the internet and the IP protocol; I'd like to hear this equipment listing - go!

He might have a clue... but you don't understand it... based on how you phrased that question.

But I can give you a computer analogy... its far from being equal... but do a complete traceroute from one computer and another anyplace. Its actually far more complex than that, but it is a simplified analogy. THere is far more equipment involved than just Routers between say the east coast and west coast. Repeaters, switches, DACS... On various Trunks and Bearers. But its something you should be able to relate to. Now all of tha tequipment is far more complex and configuration specific than any of those routers are... but that should let you begin to visualise it at a leavel that won't be confusing.


Think a transoceanic Cable is copper? And like a really long extension cord? THink again... Its fiber... there is copper to provide power for the required repeaters along the way...

I didn't even phrase a question, I just wanted you to name the things you said you could name. You're going to have to be careful about assuming people are ignorant, that could come back to haunt you.

I didn't even phrase a question, I just wanted you to go ahead and name the things you said you could name. You're going to have to be careful about assuming people are ignorant, that could come back to haunt you.

That's something others here need to remember, yourself included. I've spent a lot of time over the years in places I can't repeat. Seen things I can't repeat... worked with people I can't repeat.

And I see people all the time making impossible claims when I have been there and saw it and reality was far different than they claimed.

Take it as you wish... I could care less. I don't have a pathological need to convince anyone of anything. I've seen too many people that think they know everything when all they have is a snippet on a topic, and they don't fathom what they don't know. Most of them tend to be very young and lack the experience to know how little they really know because they can't see how much there really might be to know on any specific thing.

At the end of the day... they have only BS'd themselves.

And to be honest... "The phrase Ignorance is Bliss" you will understand after you've seen enough things you whish you never saw.

I'd be a far happier person if I had never left my home town... and never saw anything other than what the main stream media portays as news.

And this may be a shock to you... most of that was before FOX news even existed and before I was a registered republican.

CNN presented pure BS during the first gulf war...

But you can never go back. Time is a one way street.

What's the issue again ? Oh yeah... eaves dropping on Americans talking to jihadists overseas.
If the allegation of broad eaves dropping is asserted then it would be up to the person making the claim to provide the source.

If the allegation of broad eaves dropping is asserted then it would be up to the person making the claim to provide the source.Hello tom:

This is the best I can do. It's what wikki says: "The exact scope of the program is not known, but the NSA is or was provided total, unsupervised access to all fiber-optic communications going between some of the nation's major telecommunication companies' major interconnect locations, including phone conversations, email, web browsing, and corporate private network traffic."

Now, I don't know about you, but if they have ALL of it, they're listening to ALL of it. Of course, you're free to believe that they're not... Like a good rightwinger, though, I don't trust the government. Do you?

excon

Think a transoceanic Cable is copper? and like a really long extension cord? THink again......Its fiber....there is copper to provide power for the required repeaters along the way....
Good job editing your answer after I posted my reply. You think I didn't know it was fiber?? Dude I sold point-to-point and frame relay, my brother worked in a CO. Do you really think you are smarter than everyone else?


I don't have a pathological need to convince anyone of anything.But you're the one that posted: "Because I can tell every single piece of equipment on a circuit between Hoboken NJ and Timbuktu, the ENTIRE way....change its settings or shut it down." Why are you trying to convince us that you're some master expert when you "don't have a pathological need to convince anyone"?

As opposed to yourself I truly enjoyed traveling the world - perhaps that is part of our different viewpoints.

Hello tom:

This is the best I can do. It's what wikki says: "The exact scope of the program is not known, but the NSA is or was provided total, unsupervised access to all fiber-optic communications going between some of the nation's major telecommunication companies' major interconnect locations, including phone conversations, email, web browsing, and corporate private network traffic."

Now, I dunno about you, but if they have ALL of it, they're listening to ALL of it. Of course, you're free to believe that they're not.... Like a good rightwinger, though, I don't trust the government. Do you?

excon

Lets just say... The Positronic computer still exists only on Star Trek.

If you understood the sheer volume of bandwidth that passes through just one major city you would fathom the absurdity of "They listen to everything everyone says" claims they make. Who will listen to all of these calls... figuring you need one person for every call, or even for a machine to do it do you fathom the computational; power and sizes to do this... NOT even factoring in storage space. Example... how many times have you had to repeat yourself on some automated voice system? Several times right... now factor in hundreds of millions of calls every day.

What I just said makes more sense if you're a techie type. For the none tech type... you can't park all of the cars in NYC in your garage at the same time.


It would take hundreds of thousands of the most powerful supercomputers today to accomplish that.

Yeah SOME people could be listened to... not even most... and no possible way all could be.

I'm not saying it won't be possible at some point. But we aren't there yet... not even close.

And anyway... Obama never stopped it... I'm not worried... I AM worried more about the Feds having my private medical records and history than overhearing a call or two I may make. Heck... there is usually at last one person within earshot any time I talk on the phone.

I've never been planning hitting anything or bumping anyone off. They'd be bored to tears listening to my phone calls.

If you understood the bandwidth that passes through just one major city you would fathom the absurdity of "They listen to everything everyone says" claims they make.Hello again, smoothy:

Most times I choose my words very carefully. This time I was shoddy, and you caught me. Certainly, they don't LISTEN to every one. They mine the data for key words, and THEN they listen and/or read. THAT supposition is NOT absurd, is it?

Listening or mining is a distinction without a difference. Both of them are violations of yours and my Fourth Amendment rights.

excon

I have a good question... why is the partyt that was so anti-big brother making 1984 come true.

Why is the party who opposed a national ID, want to hand over everyone's medical records to the same people.

Why are the same people that loved to protest so much... turn into the people that make threats to those who protest against them?


The democrats sounda lot like a Bipolar disorder to me.

Hello again, smoothy:

Most times I choose my words very carefully. This time I was shoddy, and you caught me. Certainly, they don't LISTEN to every one. They mine the data for key words, and THEN they listen and/or read. THAT supposition is NOT absurd, is it?

Listening or mining is a distinction without a difference. Both of them are violations of yours and my Fourth Amendment rights.

excon

A machine listening for key words "hears" nothing until those words are used. I do understand some things about voice recognition. But its not my field.

All they are is a "trigger". Get enough triggers and you might just get a breathing person listening eventually. But know what, you don't have a constitutional right to priveacy on the phone... otherwise courts would never issue wiretaps. Most states allow any ONE party to record the call without your knowledge or concent.

And foreign calls and foreigners are not covered under any expectations of privacy... legally.

I want to know WHY you worry so much about that since obviously you likely aren't planning a bank heist, or a coup. But think nothing about handing your private medical records over to PEOPLE who will use them for purposes other than what they should.

And there is no possible way who gets and who is refused care won't be politicised by the democrats...


Remember Filegate? This is Filegate on steroids.


You may not have meant "EVERY" (I'll take your word for it) but there ARE plenty of people that do believe that.

I have a good question.....why is the partyt that was so anti-big brother making 1984 come true.

The democrats sounda lot like a Bipolar disorder to me.Hello again, smoothy:

I think we were just talking about the government listening to or mining ALL of your phone calls and ALL of your emails. I don't know about you, but that looks pretty big brother to me. Yes, it was brought about by RIGHT WINGERS.

You and I ain't on the same wavelength, when we're talking about big brother. We're not on the same planet.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

I think we were just talking about the government listening to or mining ALL of your phone calls and ALL of your emails. I dunno about you, but that looks pretty big brother to me. Yes, it was brought about by RIGHT WINGERS.

You and I ain't on the same wavelength, when we're talking about big brother. We're not on the same planet.

excon

Again... this was taking place Under Bill Clinton... who last time I checked was ALWAYS a democrat.

Or is it OK if Democrats do it... and by the way.. Its happening Under Obama too. Another Democrat. That's TWO democrat presidends doing what ONE republican president did... but you ignore the two democrats to focus on the one Republican.

And News flash... you think other countries aren't doing it too? Well they are, and a whole lot more.

But know what, you don't have a constitutional right to priveacy on the phone....otherwise courts would never issue wiretaps.

I want to know WHY you worry so much about that since obviously you likely aren't planning a bank heist, or a coup. Hello again, smoothy:

The courts issue warrants to wire tap specifically because you DO have a constitutional right to privacy. You're not going to win constitutional arguments with me.

I'm NOT one of those people who believe that if I have nothing to hide, then I shouldn't mind a little government snooping... No, I'm not one of those people at all. I worry about EVERYBODY'S rights under the Constitution, because if I don't, the next person who looses rights might be ME, and then I couldn't say anything about it.

I'm not black, but I stood up for Brown v Board of Education. I'm not a woman, but I stood up for the Equal Rights Amendment. I'm not gay, but I support the right of gay people to be treated exactly like everybody else. I'm not a rightwinger, but I'll stand up for your rights too.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

The courts issue warrants to wire tap specifically because you DO have a constitutional right to privacy. You're not gonna win constitutional arguments with me.

I'm NOT one of those people who believe that if I have nothing to hide, then I shouldn't mind a little government snooping.... No, I'm not one of those people at all. I worry about EVERYBODY'S rights under the Constitution, because if I don't, the next person who looses rights might be ME, and then I couldn't say anything about it.

I'm not black, but I stood up for Brown v Board of Education. I'm not a woman, but I stood up for the Equal Rights Amendment. I'm not gay, but I support the right of gay people to be treated exactly like everybody else. I'm not a rightwinger, but I'll stand up for your rights too.

excon

So... then why are you fine with a politician determining if you will be allowed to have that bypass surgery, or the cancer Surgery... of have them (all non-medical staff) going through your medical records?

Having the interns having chuckles in the office about that anal fissure you had years ago, or (name anyting else embarrassing)... But you get upset if someone overhears you talking to the mechanic about your next oil change?

After All you can kiss the Dr. - Patient priveldge thing out the door when he has to had over all your records so the party can go through them.

What next... nationalise the legal system so they have the files of all defense lawyers to share with the prosecution? That is different how?

you DO have a constitutional right to privacy.

Which Article?

What Section?

Maybe my copy got edited. I always thought the right to privacy was found to be "implied" in the Roe v. Wade decision.

So......then why are you fine with a politician determining if you will be allowed to have that bypass surgery, or the cancer Surgery.....of have them (all non-medical staff) going through your medical records?

Having the interns having chuckles in the office about that anal fissure you had years ago, or (name anyting else embarrassing)...But you get upset if someone overhears you talking to the mechanic about your next oil change?


Smoothy one of my first jobs out of college was for an Insurance company. Everything you listed here they do. If the underwriter was having a bad day your claim was not getting approved. In the break room they would bring the most embarrassing claims and read them to the other employees. So my question is what is the difference if it is a government employee laughing at medical conditions or an employee of an insurance. There is no such thing as Dr-Patient confidentiality . It really is Dr-Insurance Company- Patient confidentiality.

There is no such thing as Dr-Patient confidentiality . It really is Dr-Insurance Company- Patient confidentiality.
Throw in the entire hospital medical staff, and I'm right there with you. (I was in the hospital three times between 09/01/09 and 12/18/09, so sit down with snacks and a stiff drink while I tell you all about it.)

Throw in the entire hospital medical staff, and I'm right there with you. (I was in the hospital three times between 09/01/09 and 12/18/09, so sit down with snacks and a stiff drink while I tell you all about it.)

I forgot about them my cousin is a RN and the stories she tells are just wrong. She doesn't use a names in her story but that doesn't make it right.

I forgot about them my cousin is a RN and the stories she tells are just wrong. She doesn't use a names in her story but that doesn;t make it right.
In each patient's room there is a medical-staff-use-only (I wasn't allowed to check my email) computer that contains any patient's "chart."

Which Article? What Section?

Maybe my copy got edited. I always thought the right to privacy was found to be "implied" in the Roe v. Wade decision.Hello Cats:

Although the word "privacy" isn't used, the Fourth Amendment says, "The right of the people to be SECURE in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now, I don't know how YOU interpret that amendment, but I think it says your papers and stuff shall remain PRIVATE, unless there's probable cause that something untoward is going on. In fact, I don't see how it could be clearer... I even say that, knowing that some people (smoothy and maybe even yourself) have a TOTALLY different viewpoint about what the words mean.

excon

He brought change all right. The unemployment rate is at near record levels....our debt is now at record levels....he has made a laughing stockl out of our country.

And the arrogant SOB is obsessed with having his face and dumbo ears on the TV every day.

Any time he shows his face on TV I want to turn the channel. Thank GOD for cable TV I can find a channel he's NOT on spouting his BS and lies.

Can't you people be happy with any President you get? I rather like him. We don't like Stephen Harper, but we got to live with him for now.

Tick

Smoothy one of my first jobs out of college was for an Insurance company. Everything you listed here they do. If the underwriter was having a bad day your claim was not getting approved. In the break room they would bring the most embarrassing claims and read them to the other employees. So my question is what is the difference if it is a government employee laughing at medical conditions or an employee of an insurance. There is no such thing as Dr-Patient confidentiality . It really is Dr-Insurance Company- Patient confidentiality.

We aren't talking about Insurance companies... we are talking Government Bureaucrats. Who coincidently are also the prosecution for the state. Exactly what will prevent them from using that confidential information against anyone running against them... YOu do remember Filegate... Where Hillary Clinton had political files created to smear the opposition... then was in contempt of court for 9 months refusing to produce them... and of course Janet Reno would not throw a fellow democrat in jail... incidently those files miraculously appeared in the White house residence... one of the most tightly controlled places in the USA... and nobody knew how they got there? Yeah right... they knew Hillary had them, nobody could have possible planted them yet nothing was ever done.


I'm not excusing insurance people from doing that... but at least those records stayed in that office. The contents weren't used to smear or blackmail patients. That's exactly what Politicians with access to records WILL do.


Also... Why are Obamas College transcripts such a national secret... yet my medical records (along with everyone else's ) has every bit of information any identity thief in the world drools over having acess too. And you trust people in the civil service to keep it secret.

And when it gets out... who do you sue for the privacy breach. How do you find out who did it when its acessible from literally most of the federal government? Ever try to sue the Federal Government? Good luck if you aren't Bill Gates.
Who pays you for the grief and loss WHEN your identity is stolen as a result. And I do know people that this has happened to... you can't imagine what they go through and what it costs if you didn't know a victim.

Hope you are happy paying higher taxes to provide healthcare to illegals, Viagra to sex offenders and rapists, because you will be.

Are insurance companies perfect? Nope... but they go out of business if they screw up bad enough... not so with the feds... they need more money... they raise your taxes... you have no alternative. And unless you are connected the IRS takes everything and sends you to Jail. Unless you are Tim Geitner, or Charles Rangle as two examples.

Ever deal with the INS? Let me tell you, the Post office wins the award for best Costomer service and efficiency compaired to them. The INS is staffed with idiots, and lazy people, none of which have a clue as to what their job is.

Dealt with three INS offices in 2 states... for 2 straight years... didn't meet one person with the brains to tie their own shoes at any of them.

But they know how to take your money... not how to give you the right forms after spending 4 hours in line and 45 minutes talking with them... but they know how to take and cash that check.

Where will the savings be... the IRS is hiring 16,000 new workers to make sure everyone complies with the latest extortion scheme.

That's 16,000 salaries, 16,000 pensions, 16,000 benefit packages... and not a single thing toi do with health care.

Plus... how many of you that want this Government health care have ever been overseas to live nad work and not on vacation only... has ever been in a hospital in Europe, has known many people that have been... or knows many who have died in them and known their families were blocked from sueing for malpractice, no matter how obvious it was?

See... I do.. European hospitals scare the hell out of me... I've known far too many people die there or come out worse than they went in... and I know at least 4 of them were OBVIOUS malpractice.

I've been a patient in American hospitals several times and they are far better. That WILL change. They WILL keep score and use that to determine if you get treatment or not... thats what Obama politicians do.

In each patient's room there is a medical-staff-use-only (I wasn't allowed to check my email) computer that contains any patient's "chart."

Now give that to every politician with an axe to grind... or who wants to forward all the personal information to an identity thief...

cant you people be happy with any President you get? I rather like him. We dont like Stephen Harper, but we gotta live with him for now.

tick

He is better than Pol Pot... but then... give him time... he hasn't set up the gulags like Stalin did to send people that disagreed with him... YET.

He crys like a damn 2nd crade school kid whining that the mean kid over there won't agree with me... waaaaaaaaaaaaa!

Yeah that's real mature and presidential. I keep waiting for him to burp then lift his leg and fart for an encore at his next speech.

I have a 6 year old nephew that exhibits more maturity than Obama. He doesn't cry and complain everyone doesn't agree with him like Obama has been doing.

Hello Cats:

Although the word "privacy" isn't used, the Fourth Amendment says, "The right of the people to be SECURE in their persons, houses, papers and effects against unreasonable search and seizures shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

Now, I dunno how YOU interpret that amendment, but I think it says your papers and stuff shall remain PRIVATE, unless there's probable cause that something untoward is going on. In fact, I don't see how it could be clearer... I even say that, knowing that some people (smoothy and maybe even yourself) have a TOTALLY different viewpoint about what the words mean.

excon

Um... that doesn't apply outside of the USA... and calls to overseas ARE open to evesdropping. DO you honestly believe any call YOU make overseas isn't intercepted by other countries? Or do you only worry that OUR people might catch a terrorist before he can act? That's taken place since Jimmy Carter was in Office. Or does it only matter that a REPUBLICAN president can't do it but its OK for DEMOCRAT presidents to do it... Still waiting for you to chastise Obama for doing it... Or Bill CLinton for Doing it... or Jimmy Carter for Doing it.

I've known for decades... anything said over the phone or via computer is open to interception... and you have to behave accordingly.

Its common knowledge and searchible they did it as well. YOU do know Bush has been out of office for 15 months now... Obams has been doing it the last 15 months... He will be doing it for almost 3 more years before he is replaced... so why is it OK for him to do it... why does HE need acess to everyone's medical records too? Bush didn't want or need that... but Obama does. Say, have the FBI evesdrop on anyone ever treated for drug addiction, etc... Have the IRS whatch them closer etc...

Why does the Government want or NEED this info... it can't possibly be for anything good.

An aside observation.

To all you left wingers. LOSE the tea bagger thing.

That is as offensive to our side as it would be to your side for us to refer to you as queers.

Let's keep the disagreements agreeable.

As to the OP.

I can't say what change every conservative thought Obama would bring.

As far as I am concerned, he is proceeding pretty much as I expected.

You mean, you got fooled?

cant you people be happy with any President you get? I rather like him. We dont like Stephen Harper, but we gotta live with him for now.

tick

Tick it is something that ingrained into the American culture. :)

As to the OP.

I can't say what change every conservative thought Obama would bring.

As far as I am concerned, he is proceeding pretty much as I expected.

You mean, you got fooled? I know what you mean... he's doing exactly what I expected... giving the sun and moon to the lazy... and expecting those who earn it to hand it over or else.

He did say he wanted to Redistribute the wealth. After all, the Welfare queen in the housing projects who is on crack and averages one new baby a year by different men deserves the same amount of money a woman who got her PHD and works her butt off 12 hours a day has.


He told Joe The Plumber that on public TV remember?

Tick it is something that ingrained into the American culture. :)

I can say a thing or two about Canadian hypocrisy (well one thing here anyway)... recently Ann Coulter was accused of violating Canadian hate laws at a university (London, Ontario)... and was attacked and called names by idiots in Canada which somehow they don't think what THEY did is hate speech...

Really... Liberals can bash whomever they want, they get violent, rude and threatening... but that not hate speech... yet let a conservative say something that isn't lovey dovey and suddenly its hate speech.


Now I will openly admit... not all Canadians are like that. Thank god... I've visited Canada... its generally mostly nice people, (where I went anyway), and most Canadians I know are nice, (I have IN-Laws in Canada) but the universities there (much like they are here) are full of rude jerks that think the rules apply to everyone but them.


And Odd that the WONDERFUL Canadian health system which the left here thinks is so wonderful (but have never seen first hand)... wasn't good enough for the Canadian Premier who flew to Florida recently for surgery... or the thousands of Canadians that head south to pay cash for procedures they can't get in Canada without a long wait.


We don't wait months for procedures here... if you need something NOW... you get it NOW. Before you die from it. Nor do we have rationing like Canada, The UK or Europe.


Well we didn't before anyway... thats about to come to an end... Obama doesn't think its fair we have something better than someone else... so he is set on ruining it for everyone.


Everyone BUT himself... or Congress... who not surprisingly exempted themselves from this WONDERFUL system they are dead set of ramming down our throats by force...

If it was so freaking good... why did they exempt themselves. They REFUSE to answer THAT question... I'd rather have Congresses health care plan... they can take this one.

Um......that doesn't apply outside of the USA....and calls to overseas ARE open to evesdropping. Hello again, smoothy:

Again, you are misinformed. If an American is on ONE end of the conversation, and the call emanates from the US, the Constitution applies.

You don't have constitutional rights because of WHERE you call, or don't call. You have constitutional rights, because the Constitution says you do. I don't know why you'd think YOUR Fourth Amendment rights go away because of WHERE you call. You should read the Fourth Amendment again. I posted it in its entirety. It's pretty absolute, in my view. It says NOTHING about any exceptions. It is NOT a guideline. As you said earlier. It means what it says and it says what it means.

I say again, you cannot successfully argue constitutional law with me. I DO agree with you though, that our "papers and effects" are being searched every day. You say it's constitutional (even though you read the words). I say it's not.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Again, you are misinformed. If an American is on ONE end of the conversation, and the call emanates from the US, the Constitution applies.

You don't have constitutional rights because of WHERE you call, or don't call. You have constitutional rights, because the Constitution says you do. I dunno why you'd think YOUR Fourth Amendment rights go away because of WHERE you call. You should read the Fourth Amendment again. I posted it in its entirety. It's pretty absolute, in my view. It says NOTHING about any exceptions. It is NOT a guideline. As you said earlier. It means what it says and it says what it means.

I say again, you cannot successfully argue constitutional law with me. I DO agree with you though, that our "papers and effects" are being searched every day. You say it's constitutional (even though you read the words). I say it's not.

excon

WRONG...

If you called me... for example I can legally record our phone call and there is nothing you can do about it even if you don't like it. Doesn't matter if Your state permits it or not without consent.

Because Part of that call resides in a place that only requires one party to be aware of it.

International calls do not enjoy the same status as domestic calls do... and that's been upheld by the courts for decades.

It all falls back to common sense... you don't say what you don't want heard in any place or location... At the mall, on the phone... on the street corner. You might have the expectation of privacy IN your house... but you see... those wires LEAVE your house... and placing a bug on your handset... or a central office... are Not legally the same thing. Because you don't own or even rent the lines this transpires upon. They are the property of the Telco companies. Your physical PHONE is your property... but once that line hits the street... its ours.


Example... don't pay your bill... we don't NEED court appoval to cut off your service unlike a renter in a residence. A few key strokes and your portion of the circuit ceases to connect to anything else immediately. Nobody even has to show up at your house to do it.


THey aren't watching what YOU do... they are monitoring what going to and coming from the other end... which is NOT protected.

If you called me....for example I can legally record our phone call and there is nothing you can do about it even if you don't like it. Doesn't matter if Your state permits it or not without consent.Hello again, smoothy:

Again, you are misinformed.

The Constitution doesn't protect you from what private people can do. It protects you from what the GOVERNMENT can do. I say again, you cannot successfully argue constitutional law with me.

As a matter of fact, your lack of constitutional scholarship is becoming more and more evident. It's a simple document. It's as clear as a bell. The amendments are short and concise. It means what it says, and it says what it means. The federal government may NOT search you without first obtaining a warrant that is only issued after sworn testimony in front of a judge, that something untoward is going on.

THAT'S what the words say.

excon

Ex one problem with Wiiki... or perhaps I didn't see it as I normally don't use them as a primary source...

An appelate court already ruled that the Bush adm did not excede it's constitutional authority when conducting it's surveillance program.

Intelligence Court Releases Ruling in Favor of Warrantless Wiretapping - washingtonpost.com (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/15/AR2009011502311.html)

Hello again, smoothy:

Again, you are misinformed.

The Constitution doesn't protect you from what private people can do. It protects you from what the GOVERNMENT can do. I say again, you cannot successfully argue constitutional law with me.

As a matter of fact, your lack of constitutional scholarship is becoming more and more evident. It's a simple document. It's as clear as a bell. The amendments are short and concise. It means what it says, and it says what it means. The federal government may NOT search you without first obtaining a warrant that is only issued after sworn testimony in front of a judge, that something untoward is going on.

THAT'S what the words say.

exconI've read the constitution... English is my first language.


Just because YOU wish it said something else... doesn't change what it says.

I'm not a constitutional scholar... and I admit it... but neither are you.

There is a danger in twisting the words... you start to believe what you want... lots of people been convicted of crimes they honestly believed were not crimes for example.

Tick it is something that ingrained into the American culture. :)

After Washington read the Declaration of Independence to the troops they celebrated by bringing down a statue of King George III and melting it down to make bullets. They said they'd return them to the King "one soldier at a time" .

Since then we have pretty much followed the template of extreme mistrust of central authority .Presidents being the closest we have to putting a face on it usually get the brunt of it.

Hello again, smoothy:

Again, you are misinformed.

The Constitution doesn't protect you from what private people can do. It protects you from what the GOVERNMENT can do. I say again, you cannot successfully argue constitutional law with me.

As a matter of fact, your lack of constitutional scholarship is becoming more and more evident. It's a simple document. It's as clear as a bell. The amendments are short and concise. It means what it says, and it says what it means. The federal government may NOT search you without first obtaining a warrant that is only issued after sworn testimony in front of a judge, that something untoward is going on.

THAT'S what the words say.

excon

Which court case said that conversations placed over public carriers are the property or effects of one of the individuals?

Off topic, but what does your Constitutional expertise make of gun control laws?

Which court case said that conversations placed over public carriers are the property or effects of one of the individuals?

Off topic, but what does your Constitutional expertise make of gun control laws?Hello again, Cats:

In fact, I don't know. But, if you accept the premise that the government DOES need a search warrant in order to wire tap you, and you'd have to be blind NOT to accept that premise, then it follows that there ARE, indeed, court cases that state exactly that.

Your off topic answer: I don't know what part of my previous answers are confusing to you. The Constitution is NOT a guideline. It's the LAW. The amendments are clear and concise. They say what they mean, and they mean what they say. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed." The meaning is as clear as a bell.

excon

PS> You thought I was going to say something else, didn't you? I keep on telling smoothy that it's not a matter of what I WANT. It's a matter of what's LAW.

PS> You thought I was gonna say something else, didn't you? I keep on telling smoothy that it's not a matter of what I WANT. It's a matter of what's LAW.

I did wonder. Some others on your side of most of these discussions I think hold different opinions.

Back on topic, does the fact of warrants for some wiretaps make the process illegal or are the warrants just to make them presentable as evidence? The point still stands that wiretaps have been around almost as long as wires, so which President takes the blame - Lincoln? Johnson? Grant?

so which President takes the blame - Lincoln? Johnson? Grant?Hello again, Cats:

Warrants are fine. Bush didn't use 'em. He just threw the Constitution into the trash instead.

excon

See#178

What Cats is referring to is Lincoln's penchat for tapping directly into the telegraph wires.

President's have exerted CIC powers during wartime to conduct intelligence surveillance against the enemy and the courts have consistently confirmed that authority.
Bush's authoirty was further confirmed in the authorization act passed overwhelmingly by Congress after 9-11(the constitutional eqivalent of a declaration of war).


A special federal appeals court yesterday released a rare declassified opinion that backed the government's authority to intercept international phone conversations and e-mails from U.S. soil without a judicial warrant, even those involving Americans, if a significant purpose is to collect foreign intelligence. The ruling, which was issued in August but not made public until now, responded to an unnamed telecommunications firm's complaint that the Bush administration in 2007 improperly demanded information on its clients, violating constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The company complied with the demand while the case was pending.

In its opinion, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review ruled that national security interests outweighed the privacy rights of those targeted, affirming what amounts to a constitutional exception for matters involving government interests "of the highest order of magnitude."
The opinion, written by the court's chief judge, Bruce M. Selya, was extraordinary in several respects: It was partly redacted, and it referred to court pleadings that remain sealed. The ruling also hinged partly on a detailed, secret account by the government to the court of its surveillance procedures in 2007.

The judges, who are assigned to the court by the chief justice of the United States, concluded that the government's protections and restrictions included in the 2007 procedures were appropriate. "Our decision recognizes that where the government has instituted several layers of serviceable safeguards to protect individuals against unwarranted harms and to minimize incidental intrusions, its efforts to protect national security should not be frustrated by the courts," Selya wrote in the 29-page opinion.

He added that requiring a warrant in such cases would probably "hinder the government's ability to collect time-sensitive information and, thus, would impede the vital national security interests that are at stake."
A Justice Department statement about the ruling called it "important" because it upheld the legality of Bush administration surveillance directives in 2007.

But independent experts said it is unclear whether the ruling would have a broader effect. The case involved the Protect America Act, a surveillance law that Congress has since altered. The court also declared that its review addressed only how the law was applied in 2007, not its underlying constitutionality.

Since then, Congress has approved new foreign intelligence surveillance legislation. It does not require, for example, that agencies have "probable cause" to believe that the person being targeted is a foreign agent, but instead allows more wide-ranging surveillance. It also does not limit the intelligence-gathering to a 90-day period, as previously required.

Jameel Jaffer, head of the American Civil Liberties Union's national security project, said the appellate court was "wrong to hold that the warrant requirement does not apply to foreign intelligence investigations." But he said its relevance to controversial Bush administration domestic surveillance between 2001 and 2005 is unclear, because so little is known about the nature of those efforts or the Justice Department's underlying legal justifications for them.

"We still don't know what those actions were" and whether they would also have met the court's approval, said Jaffer, who is challenging the constitutionality of the new surveillance law before a New York federal district court.

In this case, the company protested the government's demand for information and initially refused to comply. The Bush administration took the case to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, where U.S. District Judge Reggie B. Walton upheld the government's position in a secret ruling. The firm began to comply "under threat of civil contempt," the ruling released yesterday said.

In its appeal, the firm disputed the existence of an exemption to the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable search for foreign intelligence surveillance. The company said that even if an exemption did exist, the government's demands were "unreasonable" because collecting such information for foreign intelligence may merely be a "significant" purpose under the law, rather than its "primary" purpose.

The appeals court struck down both arguments. The Supreme Court has recognized other exemptions, the ruling said, citing drug testing without warrants of high school athletes and railroad workers and frisking without warrants of those stopped by police for investigations. Selya also cited as precedent for the panel's conclusion a 1926 ruling by the Supreme Court that government officers should be regarded by the courts as acting properly in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary.

The ruling by the appellate court was only the second to be published. The panel was created in 1978 but did not meet to consider any case until 2002. In that decision, it rebuffed demands by the lower surveillance court to impose restrictions on some FBI wiretaps, ruling that the constraints were not required by the Constitution.

Yesterday's ruling can be appealed only to the Supreme Court.

Hello again, Cats:

Warrants are fine. Bush didn't use 'em. He just threw the Constitution into the trash instead.

excon

My problem with your argument is your insistence that this is a recent phenomenon. Lincoln didn't use warrants, nor did Grant, Roosevelt (either of them), Eisenhower, Truman, Carter, or Clinton.

Edit: I'm not sure about Hoover or Reagan, their intelligence people knew how to keep their mouths shut.

My problem with your argument is your insistence that this is a recent phenomenon. Hello again, Cats:

My problem with YOUR argument is that you seem to think there are exceptions to the Constitution when some OTHER president did it first. Should I repeat my, it means what it says, mantra?

THIS discussion emanated from smoothy making wild accusations about the unconstitutionality of the Obama administration. Since he's a tea bagging, birther, right winger type, I suggested that he didn't complain when Bush was violating the Constitution. Then, he looked at me in wide eyed wonderment, and asked how his fearless leader did that? So, I proceeded to tell him. Therefore, Bush IS germane to this conversation...

But, from my point of view, it's not really the ONE violation that makes him the worst president in history. It's his violation of, oh I don't know, four or five constitutional amendments. It's the total of his blatant disregard for our laws that pisses me off. I enumerated them earlier in this thread. I'm not going to do it again, unless you insist.

Suffice to say, the amendments he broke had to do with his prosecution, or ATTEMPTED prosecution of the war detainees. You, my friend Cats, believe that the ends justified the means with THOSE guys, and you and my other friend, smoothy, are HAPPY with the outcomes... So, the fact that our laws were broken because you perceive that a greater good ensued, makes it OK to fudge those laws... May I remind you of smoothy's "guideline" speech? Then you have the gall to argue with me, that what Bush did really didn't violate the Constitution, and you've got all your little lawyers, like John Yoo, who said it's OK... But, it's not OK.

The Constitution is NOT a guideline. It's the law.. By the way, if the Constitution isn't the final say, which document are you looking at? Or, are you guys just making it up as you go along?

excon

Hello again, Cats:

In fact, I dunno. But, if you accept the premise that the government DOES need a search warrant in order to wire tap you, and you'd have to be blind NOT to accept that premise, then it follows that there ARE, indeed, court cases that state exactly that.

Your off topic answer: I don't know what part of my previous answers are confusing to you. The Constitution is NOT a guideline. It's the LAW. The amendments are clear and concise. They say what they mean, and they mean what they say. "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed." The meaning is as clear as a bell.

excon

PS> You thought I was gonna say something else, didn't you? I keep on telling smoothy that it's not a matter of what I WANT. It's a matter of what's LAW.

Just to give you an answer it's the arm of the government ( FCC ) that controls communication. They are the ones with the laws controlling what can and can not be done with electronic transmissions. In some instances like mobile phones it was ruled that they could be listened to but they couldn't be discussed or divulged by private citizens. As far as needing warrants for wire taps they are still needed. Even when they were listening if it crossed a line then a warrat would have to be issued.

Hello again,

The above post (actually TWO above) and the arguments contained therein, are a DIRECT result of president Obama, saying he'd rather look forward than backward. By NOT prosecuting Vice and Bush for war crimes, he leaves the door open for revisionist history like the discussion we've been having.

You righty's should LOVE Obama for letting them off the hook. In fact, Obama embraces MOST of the Bush detention policies. Me? I believe it's a clear and utter failure on Obama's part.

A trial would clear up a lot the gobbeldygook people like smoothy, and yourself perhaps, have about the Constitution.

excon

The entire debate here, in the media, and in the courts is an example of Americans being too nice. Instead of treating the detainees according to the ILOAC (International Law On Armed Conflict) and shooting them on the battlefield, we set them up in barracks in one of the most beautiful places on earth to keep them from fighting. Stupid us.

Americans being too nice. Instead of treating the detainees according to the ILOAC (International Law On Armed Conflict) and shooting them on the battlefield, we set them up in barracks in one of the most beautiful places on earth to keep them from fighting. Stupid us.Hello again, Cats:

I agree about the stupid... I even agree about shooting the bastards on the field of war - if that's where we found 'em. But, that's not where most of the detainees came from. The were caught by Arab militias, and/or snitched on by pissed off people. In fact, of the 600 "worst of the worst", as Vice called them, over 400 of them have been released because they didn't DO anything.

Now, you don't advocate shooting somebody because somebody else says they're a terrorist, do you? So, what do we DO with those people?

I wish I was a righty. Life is much simpler for you guys.

excon

PS> Jail ain't beautiful no matter WHERE it's located.

Now, you don't advocate shooting somebody because somebody else says they're a terrorist, do you? So, what do we DO with those people?


Uh, don't pay for them in the first place?

In view of what this pres is doing I submit the following as a MUST READ.

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat (http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html)

This doesn't show as a link, so you will have to paste it, I guess.

It is a short book, but most illuminating.

In view of what this pres is doing I submit the following as a MUST READ.

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat (http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html)

This doesn't show as a link, so you will have to paste it, I guess.

It is a short book, but most illuminating.Religious mumbo-jumbo. Keep it to yourself.

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat
I've read many books and textbooks. This one makes absolutely no sense at all. He wanders all over the place and throws in a big (or archaic) word every now and then to make the reader think he is saying something important.

The Law, by Frederic Bastiat (http://bastiat.org/en/the_law.html) .

I'm afraid I have to semi-agree with Wondergirl, Gal. It's actually better written/translated than most French Revolutionary period literature that I've read, but it's more philosophy than politics. I'm almost certain any parallels between America's slow slide into Socialism and the French plunge of the 19th Century will be ignored or incomprehensible to our current crop of legislators.

The thrust of the argument is that government is supposed to protect citizens from plunder of their natural rights. (So far, so good?)

When the government begins to bring equality to the people, it then begins to plunder the people by the laws that it passes.

One group must be plundered for the benefit of another group to bring about the equality that seems to be so prized.

If you actually read the book, I don't see how you can say it has no correlation to what has been happening in this country for a very long time.

The thrust of the argument is that government is supposed to protect citizens from plunder of their natural rights. (So far, so good?)
Like I said earlier, he wanders all over the place, but never comes to a conclusion.

When the government begins to bring equality to the people, it then begins to plunder the people by the laws that it passes.
How would the people achieve equality otherwise? Would they bring it about on their own, by themselves?

There is no guarantee of equality of outcome. It's Pursuit of happiness.

How would the people achieve equality otherwise? Would they bring it about on their own, by themselves?

Equality is brought on by opportunity. If there are openings then someone will fill them. If the goobermint blocks those openings then they are short selling their citizens. So far America has been a land of opportunity. But the future isn't looking so bright with all the goobermint take overs.

If you actually read the book, I don't see how you can say it has no correlation to what has been happening in this country for a very long time.

You were talking to WG, right? My point is that our current politicians are too short sighted to see the parallel even with hindsight.

WG, I think our definitions of "equality" in a legal context may be a bit different.

But the future isnt looking so bright with all the goobermint take overs.
And what has the "goobermint" taken over?

WG, I think our definitions of "equality" in a legal context may be a bit different.
Maybe. Probably not. What's your definition?

Maybe. Probably not. What's your definition?

Spelling aside (since you didn't mention it), in a legal context equality of opportunity is preferable to the French equality of outcome in my opinion. Statistical "inequality" has not been filtered for meritorious outcomes by the press, politicians, or pundits.

Spelling aside (since you didn't mention it), in a legal context equality of opportunity is preferable to the French equality of outcome in my opinion. Statistical "inequality" has not been filtered for meritorious outcomes by the press, politicians, or pundits.
Equal opportunity, right?

And what has the "goobermint" taken over?

So far GM and the health industry and Student loans. More is on the way.

Hello dad:

They DIDN'T take over the health industry no matter what FOX says. The insurance industry remains in tact. They're even strengthened under this bill... The banks loaned the money to students and WE (that's YOU & ME taxpayers) guaranteed them. That's a perk the banks DON'T need. You don't think the banks should take a risk??

GM? Ok.

excon

So far GM and the health industry and Student loans. More is on the way.
Thirty-two million new insureds were handed over to the insurance companies. ***ADDED*** The bill’s prototype is the health care legislation Mitt Romney signed into law in Massachusetts. It contains what used to be considered Republican ideas.

What was the FAFSA I filled out for four years for my son in college, 1993-1997?

Equal opportunity, right?

As long as it's not used as a code word for reverse discrimination, as when they called Affirmative Action a means of providing "equal opportunity."

As long as it's not used as a code word for reverse discrimination, as when they called Affirmative Action a means of providing "equal opportunity."
As long as you give the same pay and benefits to male and female employees who have the same credentials and do the same work.

As long as you give the same pay and benefits to male and female employees who have the same credentials and do the same work.

Change that to "achieve the same results" and I'm with you. The measure of how one should be paid is how much they make. A female of a minority background that achieves more profit than a male from the ethnic majority should be paid more than the male, regardless of how much effort was put forth. The converse applies as well.

Change that to "achieve the same results" and I'm with you.
Okay. I'm with you too. If I do better than he does, my raise will be bigger?

Okay. I'm with you too. If I do better than he does, my raise will be bigger?

Absolutely, unless the EEOC gets involved. Everyone's raises go to the lawyer then.

So you would have disagreed with the school principal who told me at an interview that he would not pay me as much as a male going for the same job, because the male would be a breadwinner, and I wasn't?

WG, I would absolutely.

So you would have disagreed with the school principal who told me at an interview that he would not pay me as much as a male going for the same job, because the male would be a breadwinner, and I wasn't?

Yep. I know too many working singles, some with families, to let that be a factor. Besides, the thought of being a "kept" man was always intriguing.

Yep. I know too many working singles, some with families, to let that be a factor. Besides, the thought of being a "kept" man was always intriguing.
I was told I (married) didn't "need" the same amount of money as a married man. Even if an unmarried male got the job, he "could" get married along the way and become the breadwinner.

I was told I (married) didn't "need" the same amount of money as a married man. Even if an unmarried male got the job, he "could" get married along the way and become the breadwinner.

Lawyer time!

Lawyer time!
That was about 500 years ago -- in the '70s. Women didn't really have rights yet.

That was about 500 years ago -- in the '70s. Women didn't really have rights yet.

I was busy getting shot at the time. For what I thought were your freedoms.

That was about 500 years ago -- in the '70s. Women didn't really have rights yet.

What was all that bra burning stuff about in the 60's ? Or women's suffrage so they could vote ?

What was all that bra burning stuff about in the 60's ? Or womens sufferage so they could vote ?
Women's suffrage in the U.S. - 1920, 19th Amendment

Bra burning didn't hit Illinois until the mid- to late '70s. Until then, we stayed home raising our kids and cooking three squares a day and cleaning house.

Hello dad:

They DIDN'T take over the health industry no matter what FOX says. The insurance industry remains in tact. They're even strengthened under this bill...
excon

Do you really believe that propaganda? Really?

You do understand HOW insurance works... HOW they determine rates etc... and the fact they are only #88 on profitible businesses. With only 2.5% profit margine.

Dictate who gets covered rates go up... cover people who don't pay their share of premiums rates go way up.

Its NOT a zero sum action.

Listen to Nobama who says everyone gets covered for less money... believe that one and he has some prime Montana Ocean Front property to sell you for cheap too.

The budget office claims this will cost a LOT out of the gate... and yeah... you didn't see the revised numbers that came out after the preliminary numbers they left was waving around like they were final numbers did you? The drive by media didn't want everyone to see those numbers.

Do you really believe that propaganda? Really?

You do understand HOW insurance works....HOW they determine rates etc....and the fact they are only #88 on profitible businesses. With only 2.5% profit margine. Hello again, smoothy:

If you believe that regulation of ANY business means that government TOOK them over, then they've ALL been taken over, and we have NOTHING further to discuss.

excon

When companies are faced with the choice of either offering insurance for all their employers ,or paying a fine that is much less than what a company typically pays in premiums for their employees... they will gladly dump their employees onto whatever government plan is concocted from this law.

The insurance companies will not be able to compete against a gvt. Entity that is designed to operate at a loss and we will get what the statists want... a government run and controlled health-care "entitlement ".
Where all the extra providers of services come from is an unanswered question at this point. But when some government death panel tells me they are going to deny me either services or drugs I will gladly point out to them that the Obots told me it was my God given right to the services they would deny me.

Hello again, smoothy:

If you believe that regulation of ANY business means that government TOOK them over, then they've ALL been taken over, and we have NOTHING further to discuss.

excon

That isn't regulation.

You think 12 million Illegals will get covered for free? THey don't pay taxes... they don't exist here legally, How do you force THEM to pay their share rather than give them MORE free stuff for violating our laws.

You think anyone who puts their Cell phones as being more important than Health Insurance will get covered for free.


Well it might be free to them, but the rest of us who actually work for a living... and DO buy health insurance will be forced to pay THEIR bills.


You love big brother so much...


Let me see just what a bang-up job they have done thus far with Social Security... Medicare, Medicaid,

Hell, look at Obama... he has quadrupled the buget in just one year...

Funny how the people crying about Bushes buget which was 1/4 obamas was are silent.



They are all broke... and now they are going to ruin healthcare too.


What about the 16,000 NEW IRS agents that will get hired JUST to make sure that those of us who are responsible are FORCED to pay for those who won't make the sacrifice like the rest of us.

That's NO including the legions of OTHERS to "REGULATE" this that earn no profit... just suck more of our money from our wallets.

Nothing like hiring even more federal workers to "Save" money... real profitible bunch those federal workers are... without them we might actually be able to keep what we earn.

Hello again, smoothy:

There's the law, and then there's what FOX SAYS the law is. Like our views on the Constitution, what the law is, and what FOX says it is, AIN'T THE SAME.

I can't argue with hysteria.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

There's the law, and then there's what FOX SAYS the law is. Like our views on the Constitution, what the law is, and what FOX says it is, AIN'T THE SAME.

I can't argue with hysteria.

excon

Really... Exactly WHAT section on WHAT page of the Healthcare bill are illegals SPECIFICALLY not covered...

What page are people who refuse to pay not covered...

Otherwise WE are being forced to pay which increases OUR costs.

Let the lazy and cheap people pay do without. Or make the sacrifices I had to make the last 30 years to pay for my own... as far as I'm concerned they can die in the gutter if they don't make the sacrifice because I earned my money... they are NOT entitled to take it.

Exactly HOW do you expect to cover the lazy inner city slum Dwellers that have money for drugs but not health insurance...


YOU are the way claiming that the Bill says something OTHER than what those NOT in Obamas worship circle say.

Obama is the biggest liar on the Planet...

I bet he never even graduated from Havard... There are no publicly available records to prove it.

Exactly WHY should I believe a word that liar has to say... I haven't seen proof of Anything Bozo ears has said yet. And just Because Pravda says it, doesn't nake it fact.


CBS... Caught Fabricating stories.

NY Times... caught fabricating stories...

Washington Post... caught fabricating stories...

All of them having an obvious love affair with Obama... yeah... real objective journalism there... (thats sarcasm if its not obvious)

They just repeat whatever propaganda the DNC puts out without questioning it.



THey claimed the it saves money... the CBO says it's a money loser out of the gate... why don't you hear THAT in any of those propaganda outlets?

Oh... I get it.

Obama is the most honest man who ever walked the Planet, He is Jesus Christ returned and we should all bow to him and whorship him and anything he says as gospel.


Sorry... I don't whorship the man... and I have a deep seated mistrust of con-men who talk constantly trying to take your money but BS'ing you with lies and half truths.

Really did you ever look at what's in it? And not blindly believe what the DNC says that its all good, but don't believe what anyone else says and don't read it... if you are a good democrat you will not read the bill... just take their word for it.



EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The bill sets the tone for a Washington takeover of the health care system-one defined by federal regulation, mandates, myriad new programs, and higher federal spending. The bill would ensure the heavy hand of federal bureaucrats over the United States health care system, levying costly new taxes on individuals and businesses who do not comply. Many Members may question how additional federal mandates and bureaucratic diktats raising costs appreciably for all Americans would make health care more "affordable." Many Members may also be concerned that the bill's provisions-only partially masked by budgetary gimmicks and "smoke-and-mirrors" accounting-cost nearly $1.3 trillion, financed largely by significant job-killing tax increases imposed on small businesses during a recession.

Buried within the contents of the 1,990 page bill-as well as a separate 13-page bill (H.R. 3961) that would increase the deficit by more than $200 billion-are details that will see a massive federal involvement in the health care of every American, including the following:

•Creation of a government-run health plan that experts say would result in up to 114 million Americans losing their current coverage-a clear violation of any pledge to allow individuals to keep their current health plan;
•Nearly half a trillion dollars in tax increases on certain income filers, a majority of whom are small businesses-and $729.5 billion in tax increases overall;
•Insurance regulations that would raise costs for nearly all Americans, particularly young Americans, and confine choice of plans to those approved by a board of bureaucrats;
•New price controls on health insurance companies that provide perverse incentives to keep individuals sick rather than managing chronic disease, while impeding patient access to important services just because those services do not provide a direct clinical benefit;
•Additional federal mandates that would significantly erode the flexibility currently provided to employers-and could result in firms dropping coverage;
•Massive expansion of Medicaid to all individuals with incomes below 150 percent of the Federal Poverty Level ($33,075 for a family of four), replacing the existing private health coverage of millions with taxpayer-funded health care-and imposing tens of billions of dollars in new unfunded mandates on States;
•Denial of health plan choice to 15 million Americans, consigning them instead to a Medicaid program riddled with bureaucratic obstacles and poor access to care, such that its own beneficiaries do not consider it "real insurance;"
•Language opening employers operating group health plans to State law remedies and private causes of action-subjecting employers to review by 50 different State court rulings, thereby raising costs and encouraging more employers to drop their current health plans;
•Liability "reforms" intended to ensure trial lawyers do not have their compensation reduced, rather than meaningful changes that would reduce the cost of health care by eliminating wasteful defensive medicine practices;
•Establishment of a bureaucrat-run health Exchange that would abolish the private market for individual insurance outside the Exchange-and could evolve into a single-payer approach due to the Exchange's ability to cannibalize existing employer plans;
•Creation of a new government board, the "Health Benefits Advisory Committee," that would empower federal bureaucrats to impose new mandates on individuals and insurance carriers;
•Taxation of individuals who do not purchase a level of health coverage that meets the diktats of a board of bureaucrats-including those who cannot afford the coverage options provided;
•New, job-killing taxes-$135 billion worth-on employers who cannot afford to provide their workers health insurance, resulting in up to 5.5 million lost jobs, according to a model developed by President Obama's chief economic advisor;
•Penalties as high as $500,000 on employers who make honest mistakes when filing paperwork with the government health board-which would likely dissuade businesses from continuing to provide coverage, increasing enrollment in the bureaucrat-run Exchange;
•"Low-income" health insurance subsidies to a family of four making up to $88,200;
•Arbitrary and harmful cuts to popular Medicare Advantage plans that would result in millions of seniors losing their current health coverage; and
•Expanded price controls on pharmaceutical products that would discourage companies from producing life-saving breakthrough treatments.


Link to the complete 30 page unedited summary...

http://www.gop.gov/resources/library/documents/legdigests/111/Pelosi%20HC%20Bill%20Full%20Summary%20110309.pdf

Obama is the biggest liar on the Planet.....Hello again, smoothy:

Did you have a good weekend?

A while ago we were having a nice discussion. You were saying one thing about the law, and I was reading you the words... It was working pretty good, although you NEVER engaged me in any argument about what the words said, and what they meant. You just kept on bringing up NEW stuff that I debunked equally as well.

I actually thought you were listening. After all, the words in the Bill of Rights ARE pretty clear. But, like a good tea bagger, you ignore all those facts and you just keep on, keeping on.

I bring up my Constitutional stuff, only to show you that you and your birther ilk WILL NOT be convinced by facts or rational argument. You're just going to keep on, keeping on.

I cannot, and will not argue with hysteria. I think we're done here.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Did you have a good weekend?

A while ago we were having a nice discussion. You were saying one thing about the law, and I was reading you the words... It was working pretty good, although you NEVER engaged me in any argument about what the words said, and what they meant. You just kept on bringing up NEW stuff that I debunked equally as well.

I actually thought you were listening. After all, the words in the Bill of Rights ARE pretty clear. But, like a good tea bagger, you ignore all those facts and you just keep on, keeping on.

I bring up my Constitutional stuff, only to show you that you and your birther ilk WILL NOT be convinced by facts or rational argument. You're just gonna keep on, keeping on.

I cannot, and will not argue with hysteria. I think we're done here.

exconWell, you like any good "socialist"... thinks that those who earn more than you owe you that money... and that someone should get something free while someone that's worked hard to get success should have to pay for it.



Now, before you use that derogatory term... "Teabagger" again... which really, really, REALLY tickes me off. At least look it up and see what it means.

And you will be surprised it has NOTHING to do with the Tea party movement or conservatives in any way.

Urban Dictionary: tea bagger (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tea%20bagger)

The cheeky Urban Dictionary has expanded its definition of "tea bagger" from "a man that dips his scrotum and testicles into the mouth of another person" to include "a conservative activist who is so ignorant that they protest against tax cuts (that benefit them) by throwing tea into a river."

As any gay man who has ventured into some of our more louche nightspots can testify, the practice is venerated among go-go boys dancing on top of bars and boxes who will dip their family jewels into the welcoming mouth of a generous tipper. (It should be noted that the Urban Dictionary started its definition originally with a male-female scenario, so, as in so many cases of late, there is sexual parity here.)

Quote taken from... http://www.edgeboston.com/index.php?ch=news&sc=&sc2=news&sc3=&id=89676



Tea bagger and Tea Party are not the same...

Tea Party has to do with reckless spending... and taxing stupid ammounts to pay for it.

Refer back to the Boston Tea party in American History.

Now while Democrat Party may feel they are entitled to everything you make... the vast majority of the American public dioes not.

Someone else mentioned this before... I mentioning it again.


I'll assume you were not aware of its primary meaning, until now. It's not exactly common knowledge. I only learned what it was a few years ago being I don't run in those circles.

One thing is for certain its definitely all about winning now. The dems push bills through. Good for them they are the winners. Meanwhile half the country is not represented. Makes no sense at all to govern like that. At least with Bush there was some potential for recourse, although I think he barely vetoed anything regardless of which party was the majority in congress.

The other thing that is certain is resorting to calling a political movement "teabaggers" is really pathetic. I mean to say something like that makes it apparent that you have little to no value or respect for other people. Not to mention ruining another perfectly good term of the internet generation.

and that someone should get something free
Who's going to get something free?

I don't hear Big Pharma complaining. I don't hear insurance companies complaining.

What would the economy have been like right now had the McCain-Palin ticket won?

One thing is for certain its definitely all about winning now. The dems push bills through. Good for them they are the winners. Meanwhile half the country is not represented. Makes no sense at all to govern like that. At least with Bush there was some potential for recourse, although i think he barely vetoed anything regardless of which party was the majority in congress.

The other thing that is certain is resorting to calling a political movement "teabaggers" is really pathetic. I mean to say something like that makes it apparent that you have little to no value or respect for other people. Not to mention ruining another perfectly good term of the internet generation.

I think you missed something along the way. The name started by a campaign that started with people mailing tbags to their representatives. They were doing so in the tradition of the boston tea party. That's how the whole thing got started.

I think you missed something along the way. The name started by a campaign that started with people mailing tbags to thier representatives. They were doing so in the tradition of the boston tea party. Thats how the whole thing got started.

And the term "teabaggers" was first used on April 16th, 2009 by Janeane Garofolo on Keith Olberman's show to denigrate the tax protesters. In the same sentence she also said they were just racists who hated Obama.

YouTube - Janeane Garofalo calls teabaggers "racist rednecks" (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ms45EzMR0f8)

Cats:
Conservatives Debate: Is 'Teabagger' Their 'N-Word'? | TPMDC (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/to-teabag-or-not-thats-still-the-question-for-conservatives.php) and Rise of an Epithet by Jay Nordlinger on National Review / Digital (http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=Mjk1YmRjNzIxNmUwMTI0ZWYxZWU4OWU2MzFiOWJmNDE=)


The first big day for this movement was Tax Day, April 15. And organizers had a gimmick. They asked people to send a tea bag to the Oval Office. One of the exhortations was "Tea Bag the Fools in D.C." A protester was spotted with a sign saying, "Tea Bag the Liberal Dems Before They Tea Bag You." So, conservatives started it: started with this terminology. But others ran with it and ran with it.

The extent of the dialogue post-passage of the health care law has been the Dems crowing about accomplishing something ,and calling anyone who opposed it racists .
What is missing is details . The President started to tout the immediate application of no child with pre-conditions left behind... until we found out that was not true... it doesn't immediately cover them. Since then there has been a dearth of detail except where companies have gone public about how the bill screws their employees.

Henry Waxman's reaction was to (in their words) "haul " these companies into Congressional hearings ' to warn them to shut up.

Not only are they going to haul those companies in for the inquisition, the Dems were "furious" that insurance companies pointed out their coverage for children error.

Who's going to get something free?

I don't hear Big Pharma complaining. I don't hear insurance companies complaining.

What would the economy have been like right now had the McCain-Palin ticket won?

Young people... welfare people... people who choose now to give every member of the household cell phones, Cable TV with ALL the options... rather than pay for medical insurance.. illegals, and those are the majority.

And of course... those of us who actually worked hard and made sacrifices to get where we are today, are expected to fully fund that coverage for some... and subsidise coverage for the others.

Make $20K a year? Then what in the hell are you having four kids for if you can't properly provide for them.

The economy would be far better (not perfect, but better)... because Obama is doing everything that is ANTI-business... and when businesses are under assault... they hold back on hiring.

After all how many "poor" people hire others... right, none do. But nearly everyone that does makes over $250K a year who are epected to pay for everything... not just 90% of everything.

That's not responsible, or sustainible. No wonder so many places move production to countries with more favorible tax structures. And its NOT all about wages which appears to be one of the lefts talking points.

Oh wages are PART of it... but TAXES are part of it too.

I don't think ANY group should be exempted from taxes... because that is socialism... which Obama calls "Spreading the wealth around". Or otherwise known as Wealth Redistribution... like Property redistribution in socialist countries... Stealing from on and GIVING it to someone else who neither paid for it or earned it.


You didn't hear them complaining? Exactly where and to whom have you been listening? Insurance relies on Actuarial tables to provide coverage and set rates at a price people can afford based on risk.

Obama wants to toss those out and force Fat, smoking alcoholics to get the same rates paid by those who are health fanatics. Which of course means... those who are responsible get it up the butt, and those with NO self control... get a free ride.

Otherwise... they will pay out more than they take in... and no business can continue to operate long like that.

I'm not even in the Insurance industry... but I can understand how it works.


Put it in simpler terms... why should a responsible driver who never excedes the limit... follows all the rules and pays attention when they drive pay the same rates as someone who drives as fast as they want... follows none of the rules, constantly has accidents because they are on their cell phone and has had their license to drive suspended several times?


Its really not any different... Insurance is insurance when it comes to setting rates for any individual. Its all about risk...

Well, you like any good "socialist"...

Now, before you use that derogitory term....."Teabagger" again....which really, really, REALLY tickes me off. At least look it up and see what it means.Hello again, smoothy:

I don't care that you call me a socialist. I'm not. Not even close. But, I didn't know the term "Teabagger" was offensive. I, frankly, thought you embraced it. Nonetheless, I apologize. I don't need to attack you personally. I'm fine whipping your butt with my words.

excon

PS> Is birther offensive too? I got to know the rules...

and calling anyone who opposed it racists .

A tale of 2 rallies (http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/03/29/searchlight-vs-l-a-rival-rallies-reveal-stark-rightleft-divide/?singlepage=true) (graphic) - one left, one right.


What is missing is details .

The AP caught on to another detail (http://www.vaildaily.com/article/20100329/NEWS/100329582/-1/RSS), premiums could rise 17 percent for young adults and "will pinch many people in their 20s and early 30s who are struggling to start or advance their careers with the highest unemployment rate in 26 years."

Hello again, smoothy:

I don't care that you call me a socialist. I'm not. Not even close. But, I didn't know the term "Teabagger" was offensive. I, frankly, thought you embraced it. Nonetheless, I apologize. I don't need to attack you personally. I'm fine whipping your butt with my words.

excon

PS> Is birther offensive too? I gotta know the rules...

Birther is offensive... but I'm not one of those either... I just want to know why nobody I have even heard of or consider impartial... or even better, doesn't even like the guy... can say... I've seen it, it exists and isn't being kept under armed guard. I'd be happy with that. Nancy Pelosi has ZERO credibility... I want republicans to vouch for it... they have no interest in spreading a lie if one in fact has been made on the left.

There is a big difference between wanting to see it, wanting to know why it a such a big State Secret... and from arguing no way, no how was he ever born here.


Why are his records secret? The only possible answer is they expose lie, upon lie about him... otherwise he would have released them... as every other president has before him. Not JUST the birth certificate. Particularly given the racial, anti-american, and anti-christian contents of his TWO autobiographies. Which get a free ride by the drive-by media.


And I'll accept the apology. I made that explanation on open forum and not via PM as I did think that you and others could very well have been unaware of its true meaning. Its not exactly common knowledge. I only found out about it 2 years ago... when a gay guy I know used it in an unrelated conversation... I had to ask him to explain what he was saying. Because his actually comment made no sense to me... until he explained.

And it is even worse than the "N" word is to blacks... they at least use that word among themselves frequently... BUT.. We conservatives however... NEVER use that word among ourselves.

It may NOT be an offensive term inside the Gay community... but outside of it, it IS a very offensive term. And I am a straight individual who is NOT gay, or part of that community.

Hello again, smoothy:

Ok, then stop calling the Democratic party the Democrat party.

excon

Hello again, smoothy:

Ok, then stop calling the Democratic party the Democrat party.

excon

They aren't Democrats any more?

There is a big difference between wanting to see it, wanting to know why it a such a big State Secret... and from arguing no way, no how was he ever born here... Why are his records secret? The only possible answer is they expose lie, upon lie about him... otherwise he would have released them... as every other president has before him.
I never saw another president's records -- but then he was never asked to produce them.

Would you believe any records are the real deal if they are produced (and they have been, by the way)?

And I am a straight individual who is NOT gay, or part of that community.
I'm glad you clarified that.

I find it hilarious that no one knows about this term. I have been using this term since I was 12 to make fun of my friends and I am 32 now. When they first said it on the news about the tea party I couldn't stop laughing cause I knew what it meant and then realized the news and no one else really knew what it meant. I still giggle every time someone says it. You can even use an emoticon with the number 3 in front of it to give you a visual!!

Cats:
Conservatives Debate: Is 'Teabagger' Their 'N-Word'? | TPMDC (http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/to-teabag-or-not-thats-still-the-question-for-conservatives.php) and Rise of an Epithet by Jay Nordlinger on National Review / Digital (http://nrd.nationalreview.com/article/?q=Mjk1YmRjNzIxNmUwMTI0ZWYxZWU4OWU2MzFiOWJmNDE=)

I stand corrected. Thank you. Wasn't it nice of the tax protesters to provide their opponents a fresh epithet? I'll leave this one alone from now on.

I never saw another president's records -- but then he was never asked to produce them.

Would you believe any records are the real deal if they are produced (and they have been, by the way)?

I'm glad you clarified that.Bush had his out (both of them)... Clinton had his out...

The best advocate for anything... is from someone NOT friendly to them.

If Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh, saw them and said they exist... I'd trust them because they have ZERO interest in saying otherwise.

Conversely... do you trust the used car salesman that trying to hawk a car to you... or a salesman that came knocking on your door promoting his goods as the best there is?

So why do you trust a politician when he says, "Trust me, you'll want this".


Or nancy Pelosi... " We need to pass the Bill so we can find out whats in it"


DOn't believe she said that... here is the video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To

I stand corrected. Thank you. Wasn't it nice of the tax protesters to provide their opponents a fresh epithet? I'll leave this one alone from now on.It's the kids who play Halo who picked it up more than anyone else.