[vector]

I saw something yesterday that made me shake my head a bit. There in the parking lot of a local gas station/convenience store was one of those portable pop-up pavilions. What caught my eye was the advertising printed on the canvas. "FREE PHONES" A long line of eager takers were there waiting for their own free phone.

What I saw today made that seem insignificant by comparison. As a few of us on here have argued time after time, ObamaCare could never have been paid for out of thin air in the manner laid out by this administration. You're never gonna get young folks to flock in and enroll in ObamaCare to start paying for coverage they know they are not likely to use anytime soon, especially in light of the fact they will supposedly be allowed to stay on their parents insurance until age 26. At any rate, Harry Reid finally came clean on the matter; "Yesterday on PBS’ Nevada Week In Review, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D., Nev.) was asked whether his goal was to move Obamacare to a single-payer system. His answer? “Yes, yes. Absolutely, yes.”

In one sense, this isn’t shocking. Reid and many other Democrats, including President Obama, have often stated that their ideal health-care system is one in which the government abolishes the private insurance market."
Read More: http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecar...er-system/

Many folks have known from the outset, that the eventual emergence of a single payer system was coming if ObamaCare was passed. However, there is something that ObamaCare provides past the glaringly obvious things presented by opponents over the past few years. Those being the skyrocketing costs for care and insurance, limited availability to care, the loss of one's trusted and preferred physician for government assigned medical facilities and what ever staff happens to be at work for your so-called appointment which, will amount to no more than your 'window' for a kind of medical cattle-call. Medical rationing and yes even those death panels you've been hearing so much about. The thing that was so clever about all this is the way the liberals cloaked their true intentions in the clothes of politics. This was never about a typical two party spat. It has always been the liberal assault on the American liberties they so desperately despise. So, what else is coming as the result of ObamaCare? IMO, the so-called low information voter has been socially engineered into giving up his right to achieve the American dream. The government has been telling folks for nearly five years now they should rebel against the 'Wall Street Fat Cats' and, that if they will keep voting the democratic ticket, their Democratic dominated government, will respond in kind and just give them everything they need.

I have mentioned that today's Democrat bears no faint similarity to those of the recent past. The party has been commandeered by progressive liberals, who have ascended to positions of power within the party. Somehow they have managed to disguise their attack on traditional America as the everyday business as usual wrangling that has for so long generally characterized the differences between the two parties. The shenanigans of this day have nothing to do with the rather casual philosophical differences of the parties to which our parents and grandparents were part. This fight isn't between typical dems and repubs who both love and serve their country. This fight is between liberals who want to see America put in her place (in their eyes) and conservatives who want to keep her strong and sovereign in a very hostile world.

Past the obvious limitations listed above, ObamaCare will in my opinion, completely homogenize our culture to the casual eye into a sort of quasi sameness. I believe all that will really actually happen is the gulf between the rich and the common man will widen exponentially. Those who have worked hard to provide comforts and a margin of safety in the form of savings, and things like health and life insurance, will wake up one day soon to find the field has been suddenly and artificially leveled. Why would folks continue to work hard to get ahead when the ability to get ahead has been taken away by government? I mean, if they are going to keep putting the 'no works' by law up to the head of the line, who are we kidding here? In the place of personal achievement, will come government issued regulations which, will require everybody to get and do, "his fair share." Health insurance companies as we know them may soon vanish from memory. That is what a single payer system does, eradicate insurance companies. Hence, all the hate speak and bad mouthing in their direction of late. Obviously there are faults but, they are faults which are correctable from within the existing system.

Here's generally what I'm talking about. Take the guy who has spent his whole adult life leaning against the floodwall with a bottle of Thunderbird in his hand who suddenly, finds that he has been escorted to the front of the line, ahead of all those who, thanks to honest and hard effort, at one time enjoyed certain privilege over him. To me this is the true genius of the liberal assault on traditional America. This homogenizing of the health care system, while making it look like a mere fight between dems and repubs is an example of misdirection at the nuclear level. People are going to throw up their hands in betrayal and disbelief.

I can't think of a better way to sap the strength and soul of the American public than to remove the reward for superior innovation and hard work. On the one hand, dems preach diversity and tolerance but, on the other as is evidenced by current policy, they mandate one size fits all regulations to force this Unitarian concept of sameness on the masses.

[Image: http://www.bluegrassrivals.com/forum/pic...tureid=573]

[Hoot Gibson]

http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

Lies and half truths are the currency of the Obama presidency and left wing organizations that run websites like factcheck.org.

Who gets rich off 'free' government phones

The paying customers of phone companies pay for the freeloaders' Obamaphones. That kind of subsidation may not constitute a tax in the liberal doublespeak in which your Dear Leader engages, but try getting phone service without paying such fees. Fools and their money...

[vector]

Lies and half truths are the currency of the Obama presidency and left wing organizations that run websites like factcheck.org.

Who gets rich off 'free' government phones

The paying customers of phone companies pay for the freeloaders' Obamaphones. That kind of subsidation may not constitute a tax in the liberal doublespeak in which your Dear Leader engages, but try getting phone service without paying such fees. Fools and their money...

can't handle the truth duck dive and dodge

[TheRealThing]

can't handle the truth duck dive and dodge

I wouldn't quite stretch the point to say I'm flattered that you quote my so often but, that is my material you keep parroting there vector, at least you could try to come up with something original. And I'm not talking about Obama's talking points, LOL.

Try to understand. When the idea of social security first emerged as initiated by President Franklin D Roosevelt, it was a program intended to reward the EFFORTS of old folks and minor aged survivors of parents who had died or become disabled after living a productive life in the workplace. Got that?

Most people are okay with that idea. What you and your liberal brethren want to do is reward people who've never worked. It's one thing to pay into the social security system for one's working life and then to draw a check in old age or after being disabled. It is waaaay outside of logic on the other hand to pay lazy do-nothings to sit around in government funded housing, enjoying food gotten through the food stamp program, free utilities, free medical care, spending money and cell phones, all thanks to taxpayers who have enough character to go out and get whatever work is available.

[tvtimeout]

Just a question: Didn't Ronald Reagan give away house phones? This program is just replacing that one...

[TheRealThing]

Just a question: Didn't Ronald Reagan give away house phones? This program is just replacing that one...

Ever heard the old saying, "Too much of a good thing?"


ARTICLE EXCERPT ---
"The Federal Communications Commission oversees the so-called Lifeline program, created in 1984 to make sure impoverished Americans had telephone service available to call their moms, bosses, and 911. In 2008, the FCC expanded the program to offer subsidized cell-phone service, and since then, the expenses of running the program have soared. In 2012, the program’s costs had risen to $2.189 billion, up from $822 million before wireless carriers were included. As of June, there were 13.8 million active Lifeline subscriptions."
END EXCERPT ---

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/35...y-melchior



This program replacing Reagan's? Not really, as you can see in the article excerpt the program was expanded under this administration. Expanded in much the same way food stamp usage has gone up from 32 million in 2008 to just under 50 million in 2013, and in the same manner in which the unemployed in the US has expanded to 86 million. http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/03/news/eco.../index.htm

[Hoot Gibson]

can't handle the truth duck dive and dodge

can't come up with an original post...copy, paste, repeat...

[VHSL-helper]

Ever heard the old saying, "Too much of a good thing?"


ARTICLE EXCERPT ---
"The Federal Communications Commission oversees the so-called Lifeline program, created in 1984 to make sure impoverished Americans had telephone service available to call their moms, bosses, and 911. In 2008, the FCC expanded the program to offer subsidized cell-phone service, and since then, the expenses of running the program have soared. In 2012, the program’s costs had risen to $2.189 billion, up from $822 million before wireless carriers were included. As of June, there were 13.8 million active Lifeline subscriptions."
END EXCERPT ---

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/35...y-melchior



This program replacing Reagan's? Not really, as you can see in the article excerpt the program was expanded under this administration. Expanded in much the same way food stamp usage has gone up from 32 million in 2008 to just under 50 million in 2013, and in the same manner in which the unemployed in the US has expanded to 86 million. http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/03/news/eco.../index.htm

Ahhhh... the same reasoning as those 72% of La. Repubs that say Obama was more or equal to blame for the feds slow response to Katrina.
The program was expanded in 2008. Now, let's see... WHICH administration would that have been????

[TheRealThing]

Ahhhh... the same reasoning as those 72% of La. Repubs that say Obama was more or equal to blame for the feds slow response to Katrina.
The program was expanded in 2008. Now, let's see... WHICH administration would that have been????

LOL, so you're saying that while George W was spending his last few months in the White House his priorities shifted somewhat and he became obsessed with government issued cell phones? For the record, I never claimed to be republican. I vote republican because they tend to adhere more closely with traditional conservatism.

In the 110th Congress, Jan 2007 thru Jan 2009, the democrats controlled both chambers. You don't suppose they had anything to do with the coming expansion? My intention was to show how the cost for that and other programs exploded during the time period from (late if you will) 2008 to 2012. Lifeline program costs darn near tripled in those four years. Obviously Safe-Link has the green light to go out and actively recruit folks to sign up for and receive free phones. But, to be more specific, phone subsidization actually began under Bill Clinton and the cell phone distribution program began in 2008. The wholesale cell phone lottery didn't start happening until the distribution program hit second gear a couple of years ago. In any case, you completely dodged the substance of my post which in no way did I stretch the truth.

BTW, as far as the reasoning goes, I prefer avoiding the Obama Websites and tend to develop ideas which are not based loosely on adaptive liberal ideology.

[VHSL-helper]

LOL, so you're saying that while George W was spending his last few months in the White House his priorities shifted somewhat and he became obsessed with government issued cell phones? For the record, I never claimed to be republican. I vote republican because they tend to adhere more closely with traditional conservatism.

- - snip - - ... But, to be more specific, phone subsidization actually began under Bill Clinton ...

No, I said the 2008 expansion occured while Bush was in office, just like Katrina.

And it was actually Reagan who started it all. But I guess the FCC isn't a valid source of my info, since it's an Obama website. http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline

[TheRealThing]

No, I said the 2008 expansion occured while Bush was in office, just like Katrina.

And it was actually Reagan who started it all. But I guess the FCC isn't a valid source of my info, since it's an Obama website. http://www.fcc.gov/lifeline

Don't misunderstand my intent. Very often when I see an indigent walking the streets they have a cell phone pressed up to the side of their head. And as I mentioned, companies like Safe-Link actively recruit subscribers, going as far as setting up outdoor pavilions in strategic locations. Sort of like fishing where one knows the fish are the most abundant. How much money would you bet that these folks are walking around talking to perspective employers? My money would be on the likelihood that they're just blowing gas with friends. This is an apt example of how good intentions of well meaning legislators can go awry once turned over to the machinations of bureaucracy. Like everything else folks on the dole get, they live for today and if the phones are gone tomorrow or if their minutes are wasted leaving the intended benefit of the lifeline program unfulfilled, such as emergency calls or to a prospective employer, that's not something they are going to worry about.

The point is, not only are government giveaway programs available to the needy. They are actively and aggressively pushed on the public by so-called navigators, social workers and vendors who many times, have quotas they are trying to meet. So, those who are a bit too bashful to come in and apply for the various benefits may now expect social workers to come to where they hang out I suppose. Therefore, even though programs such as 'Lifeline' may have seen their humble origin arise during the Reagan administration or some other, they in present form, bear no faint similarity to the out of control entitlement situation of our time.

It's one thing to give blood, it's quite another to donate to the point of death. Same thing with the very replete list of available entitlements, from ObamaCare to free cell phones. Federal mandates which force those that work to care for those who for the most part, choose not to work, IMO will lead our nation to the same end as the overzealous blood donor. There was no place to draw the line on entitlements from the day America decided she would 'buy' the problems of the poor under the auspices of LBJ's social vision dubbed "The Great Society". Liberals love to give things away, and this president has taken a program started by Ronald Reagan and gone berzerk with it, nearly tripling the cost of the program over the last four years. So, blaming Reagan or Bush for all these cell phones flying around is a bit disingenuous, is it not? Under this administration, t's the same story across the hand-out board, foodstamps up, disability claims up, everything up. When demand exceeds supply, I worry lawlessness will ensue.

The argument for a national safety net to me is both financially and morally sound. But, anybody can come in with a sad story and ask their living be handed to them by the rest of us. You know, this idea of being governed of and by the people is very similar to the concept of casualty insurance. Sharing a risk among many, is far more affordable and has the side affect of quaranteeing collateral loans. If I lose my home to fire I lose everything. But, if I pay an affordable fee each year along with 10,000 other home owners in a risk sharing pool, the 20 or so who experience a fire will be able to replace their belongings far easier. As mentioned, this concept in turn is the basis for the mortgage industry.

In short, I don't mind sharing the risk with my fellow hard working neighbors. But, I've got a real problem when they get the same benefits freely given to them by the government that I must pay to have. In the eyes of the federal government, there is something they call the poverty line. Anybody who falls below the line whether by circumstance or by choice legally qualifies to have life handed to them. A much more black and white picture than prosecuting criminals or determining what the definition of is, is. LOL At any rate, what the government does is decide who has to work and who doesn't, who has to pay and who doesn't. You know that can't work forever.

[vundy33]

Lol, I have noticed the poverty line is a joke. Technically I was below it while active duty (of course the benefits outweigh that big time), to being just above it for just over a year now, and now I'm making more than even my dad ever did in the last 10 or so years of his life, and he owned multiple coal companies, lol. But I've also noticed that jobs like teaching are so much closer to this "poverty line" than they should be, considering it's one of the most important jobs a person can have in my opinion.

I am a contractor working for the government. And the irony is that I do a job that the US government can definitely cover. The numbers have gotten better since the height of the Iraq war when the US relied much more on civilian contractors, but they're still crazy high. Huge waste in my opinion. Definitely the best job I've ever had though.

We're in a pickle.

[TheRealThing]

Lol, I have noticed the poverty line is a joke. Technically I was below it while active duty (of course the benefits outweigh that big time), to being just above it for just over a year now, and now I'm making more than even my dad ever did in the last 10 or so years of his life, and he owned multiple coal companies, lol. But I've also noticed that jobs like teaching are so much closer to this "poverty line" than they should be, considering it's one of the most important jobs a person can have in my opinion.

I am a contractor working for the government. And the irony is that I do a job that the US government can definitely cover. The numbers have gotten better since the height of the Iraq war when the US relied much more on civilian contractors, but they're still crazy high. Huge waste in my opinion. Definitely the best job I've ever had though.

We're in a pickle.

We're in a pickle alright. I didn't realize the number of contractors the government uses these days. Maybe they do it because the armed services can't or doesn't want to man these positions anymore. The thing is, contractors have access to sensitive information. Some of it so much so, if it were to fall into enemy hands US security could be seriously harmed.

It seems more than likely to me to think we'll see more Snowdens popping up in the coming days than we would like.

[vundy33]

I trust most of our contractors that are in sensitive positions though. After all, our biggest problem from recent leaks came from inside the U.S. Army in the shape of a little chubby private. That did more damage than any surveillance program has in my opinion.

I just think relying on contractors for the easiest things, like building an outpost, is ridiculous when we have a capable force to do it and more importantly, much cheaper. Now some in some spots, we have to use contractors obviously. But I feel they're still being relied on way to much.

As an example, the U.S. Government (relying mostly on contractors) just finished up a project for a new RC-South command outside of Kandahar. By far the most up to date, high speed building in Afghanistan. The only problem is that multiple commanders advised years ago when the program was just getting started that we didn't need it. Now, we're done with it, and what Americans do we have to occupy it? None, lol. It's still empty. Over $150 million for nothing. Actually I think the price tag is a bit higher, I'll try to find the link again. Saw it on Wired before they stopped writing about National Security.

Of course we have many more problems, but this one is something that can be fixed, but is being ignored. Of course, we don't hear anyone accusing government officials of relying on contractors for their own personal gain like we saw in Iraq, lol. It hasn't changed, it was just exported.

Two of the Americans killed in Benghazi, two of the guys who were on the guns helping hold back the attack, weren't CIA. They're often called that, but they weren't. They were contractors, of course.

[tvtimeout]

I trust most of our contractors that are in sensitive positions though. After all, our biggest problem from recent leaks came from inside the U.S. Army in the shape of a little chubby private. That did more damage than any surveillance program has in my opinion.

I just think relying on contractors for the easiest things, like building an outpost, is ridiculous when we have a capable force to do it and more importantly, much cheaper. Now some in some spots, we have to use contractors obviously. But I feel they're still being relied on way to much.

As an example, the U.S. Government (relying mostly on contractors) just finished up a project for a new RC-South command outside of Kandahar. By far the most up to date, high speed building in Afghanistan. The only problem is that multiple commanders advised years ago when the program was just getting started that we didn't need it. Now, we're done with it, and what Americans do we have to occupy it? None, lol. It's still empty. Over $150 million for nothing. Actually I think the price tag is a bit higher, I'll try to find the link again. Saw it on Wired before they stopped writing about National Security.

Of course we have many more problems, but this one is something that can be fixed, but is being ignored. Of course, we don't hear anyone accusing government officials of relying on contractors for their own personal gain like we saw in Iraq, lol. It hasn't changed, it was just exported.

Two of the Americans killed in Benghazi, two of the guys who were on the guns helping hold back the attack, weren't CIA. They're often called that, but they weren't. They were contractors, of course.

Contractors are big donors...this is their kick back for being such a donor.

[vundy33]

I don't buy that argument honestly, lol. So many of the ones we use aren't even American companies. I just think it's the same kind of waste you find in the rest of the military and the rest of government spending...mismanagement and a thought that the money can't run out. Of course that's been the case multiple times over the years, but I don't think it's even close to what people make it out to be.

[Hoot Gibson]

I don't buy that argument honestly, lol. So many of the ones we use aren't even American companies. I just think it's the same kind of waste you find in the rest of the military and the rest of government spending...mismanagement and a thought that the money can't run out. Of course that's been the case multiple times over the years, but I don't think it's even close to what people make it out to be.

If you compare the total compensation package that federal employees get compared to contractors, including the generous retirement and medical benefits, it is cheaper to use contractors in many cases. There is no cost when a project is completed to simply fire contractors. It amazes me how much time and money the military spends on out processing and in processing people when they switch locations or retire. I work across the hall from a LT General who is in the process of retiring and he will be there for months as he takes his accumulated leave and prepares to reenter the civilian world. For contractors, the process takes less than a day and there are no ongoing costs to the government following retirement or termination.

I used to believe as you do, that using contract labor is always more expensive than hiring employees - both in the private and in the public sector. However, my experience as a contractor and observing the hidden costs of federal employees, prompted me to change my opinion. I am sure that there are situations where employing contractors over long periods of time costs the federal government more than using its own employees, but that is not true in most cases.

[TheRealThing]

If you compare the total compensation package that federal employees get compared to contractors, including the generous retirement and medical benefits, it is cheaper to use contractors in many cases. There is no cost when a project is completed to simply fire contractors. It amazes me how much time and money the military spends on out processing and in processing people when they switch locations or retire. I work across the hall from a LT General who is in the process of retiring and he will be there for months as he takes his accumulated leave and prepares to reenter the civilian world. For contractors, the process takes less than a day and there are no ongoing costs to the government following retirement or termination.

I used to believe as you do, that using contract labor is always more expensive than hiring employees - both in the private and in the public sector. However, my experience as a contractor and observing the hidden costs of federal employees, prompted me to change my opinion. I am sure that there are situations where employing contractors over long periods of time costs the federal government more than using its own employees, but that is not true in most cases.

That being the case. How badly could American national security be compromised by contractors with sensitive info? Did Snowden merely suspect the depth of the NSA's invasive capabilities into everyman's life, or did he really work with this kind of thing first hand?

[Hoot Gibson]

That being the case. How badly could American national security be compromised by contractors with sensitive info? Did Snowden merely suspect the depth of the NSA's invasive capabilities into everyman's life, or did he really work with this kind of thing first hand?

Thinj about how much national security has been compromised by giving idiots like Joe Biden access to classified information and giving Obama and his minions the power to decide what is classified and what gets declassified. Far too many government employees and contractors have access to highly classified information, but we must not forget the much bigger threat to national security that electing total morons to the highest levels of our federal government poses.

Obama's campaign rhetoric has put us at risk of waging a war with no possible good outcome simply to allow him to save face.

[vundy33]

Frankly, I'm surprised that we don't have more traitors than we have had during these two wars. When I was a grunt, I didn't realize the scale of which we operate against terrorism. Now I do.

[TheRealThing]

Thinj about how much national security has been compromised by giving idiots like Joe Biden access to classified information and giving Obama and his minions the power to decide what is classified and what gets declassified. Far too many government employees and contractors have access to highly classified information, but we must not forget the much bigger threat to national security that electing total morons to the highest levels of our federal government poses.

Obama's campaign rhetoric has put us at risk of waging a war with no possible good outcome simply to allow him to save face.

LOL, not to mention the fact that Obama has practically sent Assad a detailed account of our exact battle plan.The size of our forces, types of ordinance we will be using and the platforms from which they will be launched, a very precise list of targeting information, the length of time they can expect to be subjected to hostilities and a near to zero hour time of attack.

I think you're right, nothing good will come of it. It's an obvious dodge to escape the scandals that are bearing down on the administration. Hear much about the IRS scandals or NSA, or Benghazi lately? John McCain and Lindsey Graham are doing as much to facilitate a clean getaway as any smoke screen the left could have ever dreamed up. Assuming the point on Obama's push to give Assad a proper liberal slap on the wrists, they're a truly clueless duo. LOL, is Henry Hyde still alive? We need to get him back in congress.

[vundy33]

I've been surprise at McCain's stance on helping the Syrian rebels. I tend to give him the benefit of the doubt because of his military history and I'm sure he knows more about the situation than I, but I disagree with him big time.

Also wish that recent events, like Benghazi and the IRS thing, would still be talked about. But the Syrian situation has done a good job of taking away scrutiny.

I became convinced multiple years ago that there is nothing the press loves more than war...

[TheRealThing]

Well now that a few Republicans actually have had the courage to adequately address the curse which is ObamaCare, American awareness has been aroused. Statesmen like Ted Cruz realize that personal attack is one of the guaranteed results of standing up for the people in today's political climate. It is said that Madison and other founding fathers, foresaw the potential for a US president or faction to try to rule rather than govern, and therefore wrote about the power of Congress to control the purse in The Federalist Papers #58.

To my mind, the following is what we see happening in the Senate as applies to the Harry Reid led 'coalition' as was envisioned so long ago by Madison---
Quote: "It may be alleged, perhaps, that the Senate would be prompted by like motives to an adverse coalition; and as their concurrence would be indispensable, the just and constitutional views of the other branch might be defeated. This is the difficulty which has probably created the most serious apprehensions in the jealous friends of a numerous representation."

The only real power voters have obviously, is to vote for men of integrity to fill public office. And this doesn't have the first thing to do with welfare or guarantees of welfare, for a basis on which to run for office. The other power to control radical adversities and coalitions within the federal government has to do with the House of Representatives. They, seeing a sprout of wormwood growing in power from within the innards of the government. Have the power to defund anything they perceive to be an offense to the 'common good'. However, there is no doubt that we are presently watching one body, (the senate) through adverse coalition defeat the other, (the house)

The US House of Representatives---
Quote: "They, in a word, hold the purse that powerful instrument by which we behold, in the history of the British Constitution, an infant and humble representation of the people gradually enlarging the sphere of its activity and importance, and finally reducing, as far as it seems to have wished, all the overgrown prerogatives of the other branches of the government. This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure."

Federalist 58 LINK--- http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/fed/blfed58.htm


Of course, the one thing that the founding fathers could never have foreseen is the power of the media to manipulate the minds of the people and to 'sell' these extreme leftist ideals to somehow be American in nature. It has been my observation that the dems are the ones making all the inflexible demands while painting the republicans as inflexible for merely trying to slow this liberal lemming rush for history's cliffs of obscurity. Common sense will need to reemerge if we are to find ourselves as a people once again, IMO.

[vector]

Of course, the one thing that the founding fathers could never have foreseen
is the power of fox news to manipulate the minds of the people and to 'sell'
these extreme tea party ideals to somehow be American in nature. It has been
my observation that the crazy's are the ones making all the inflexible demands
while painting the democratics as inflexible for merely trying to slow this
crazy's rush for history's cliffs of obscurity. Common sense will need to
reemerge if we are to find ourselves as a people once again, IMO.

[Harry Rex Vonner]

Of course, the one thing that the founding fathers could never have foreseen
is the power of fox news to manipulate the minds of the people and to 'sell'
these extreme tea party ideals to somehow be American in nature. It has been
my observation that the crazy's are the ones making all the inflexible demands
while painting the democratics as inflexible for merely trying to slow this
crazy's rush for history's cliffs of obscurity. Common sense will need to
reemerge if we are to find ourselves as a people once again, IMO.

I feel certain that the founding fathers never remotely thought that the country would be self-destructing from within because of all the nanny programs and assaults on the natural law (abortion, homosexual marriage, etc.) which has been instigated and nurtured by the liberal Democrats.

Instead of being a country of rugged individualists building their own futures we have become a country of loafers, con artists, reprobates, special interest groups, and amoral perverts. Somehow I believe the founding fathers would have, had they foreseen the carnage, chosen to not bother in the first place.

[TheRealThing]

Of course, the one thing that the founding fathers could never have foreseen
is the power of fox news to manipulate the minds of the people and to 'sell'
these extreme tea party ideals to somehow be American in nature. It has been
my observation that the crazy's are the ones making all the inflexible demands
while painting the democratics as inflexible for merely trying to slow this
crazy's rush for history's cliffs of obscurity. Common sense will need to
reemerge if we are to find ourselves as a people once again, IMO.

Plagiarizing other people's work is by far your best option there vector. Considering past comments, you probably should stick with that tactic.

At any rate, Madison's level of comfort with regard to the measure of integrity the founding fathers built into the system, would be more than a little shaken had he witnessed the atrocities being foisted upon the people by this Senate. He counted on honor, statesmanship, and love of country to shine the light of truth on future politicians. When one has no honor, it is impossible to embarrass that politician. People who have no compunction whatever for lying from the well of the Senate, or the well of the UN, or the Oval Office have no integrity to bruise.

-----------------------

Madison Quote from Federalist 58---
"But will not the House of Representatives be as much interested as the Senate in maintaining the government in its proper functions, and will they not therefore be unwilling to stake its existence or its reputation on the pliancy of the Senate? Or, if such a trial of firmness between the two branches were hazarded, would not the one be as likely first to yield as the other? These questions will create no difficulty with those who reflect that in all cases the smaller the number, and the more permanent and conspicuous the station, of men in power, the stronger must be the interest which they will individually feel in whatever concerns the government. Those who represent the dignity of their country in the eyes of other nations, will be particularly sensible to every prospect of public danger, or of dishonorable stagnation in public affairs."

------------------------

Disagreements between the House and the Senate were meant to be resolved in the House. But, in any case, the House is to stick to it's guns and never capitulate it's power to 100 Senators beset by egomania. The collective wisdom of 435 lawmakers of whom the charge is to represent the 'common good', is considered to be less self serving than the 100 Senators whose job is to represent the states. Harry Reid is trying to turn the Constitution on it's head by dictating terms to the House. And IMO, it would have required a lizard of his ilk to harbor enough disdain for his country to go through with such a destructive action. But, like I said, everything done in chambers in our time is televised. And, dems think nothing of distorting the truth in order to push the liberal/progressive agenda. Thusly putting party platform above the people and ultimately the country.

[TheRealThing]

I feel certain that the founding fathers never remotely thought that the country would be self-destructing from within because of all the nanny programs and assaults on the natural law (abortion, homosexual marriage, etc.) which has been instigated and nurtured by the liberal Democrats.

Instead of being a country of rugged individualists building their own futures we have become a country of loafers, con artists, reprobates, special interest groups, and amoral perverts. Somehow I believe the founding fathers would have, had they foreseen the carnage, chosen to not bother in the first place.

It's heartbreaking, that's for sure. And, although I believe the founding fathers would be turning in their graves, were that possible, anybody who has skin in the game is offended by what we see and hear in our day. The uber liberal is usually one who never served his country, or conscientiously objected while serving. As the record demonstrates with regard to the case of anti-war activist and current Secretary of State John Kerry.


John Lennon and Yoko Ono at a rally in Bryant Park on April 22, 1972

CLICK ME
[attachment=o2859]

"We marched down Central Park West and then Broadway. The streets were thronged with about 35,000 chilly, wet people. As we approached Times Square cheers went up as we saw a headline about the march go around the “news zipper.” The march turned east at 42nd Street and ended in Bryant Park, where a stage for speakers was set up near the southwest corner.

Speakers included John Kerry, representing the Vietnam Veterans Against The War (VVAW). It was the day he and Lennon were photographed together." http://www.thedailysheeple.com/full-circ...use_092013



John Lennon, though the victim of murder himself, did a lot to degrade this nation's image of itself. Had college profs done their jobs and properly cast the liberal and socialist rantings for which Mr Lennon is so well known, against the truthful backdrop of her very recent contributions to the world, things may well have gone differently in this country. Lennon, like so many liberals, was a blissfully naïve man. Whose homeland, thanks to the gift of countless thousands of American lives, was delivered out of the hand of that madman, Adolf Hitler at the end of WW2. Lennon would have been abundantly clear on this matter. He'd have known only too well that he and his countrymen would have been slaves to the Nazis, and would have had no chance to amass the unbelievable riches he and the rest of the Beatles enjoyed, otherwise. As his music and his life reveals however, he had nothing but contempt for the US or Parliament, for that matter. Hence, the anti-war rhetoric, activism and legacy. Said legacy is embodied much more meaningfully by his significant influence in the lives of today's American liberal, than his music ever could. Ironically, the pot culture may have well put America's future in the pot. :biggrin: And now, marijuana is being legalized, along with the other ills Harry Rex so aptly identified in the above referenced post.

Coming full circle. Just saying something don't make it so. And, just as equally, not liking something isn't necessarily going to make it go away either. So, although 'imagining', the world free from hunger, want, sickness, war, and devoid of all pollutants and responsibility for one's sexual forays might make good fodder for a folk song, it's never going to happen on this planet. And, though liberals might get sufficient legislation passed so as to wall paper the entire grounds of Woodstock, their whole premise was still dreamed up at a pot party attended by a bunch of hippies.

[TheRealThing]

FORBES:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecar...r=yahootix
"On October 1, Obamacare’s subsidized insurance exchanges went live. Most of the exchange websites crashed on the first day, a development that led some of the law’s supporters to conclude that there was overwhelming demand for Obamacare’s insurance products. But the Obama administration isn’t releasing figures as to the number of Americans who have actually signed up for exchange-based coverage. “Very, very few people that we’re aware of have enrolled in the federal exchange,” said one anonymous insurance industry official to the Washington Post. “We are talking single digits.”

Last I checked, the Post wasn't exactly what one could call conservative. We'll see how many people actually sign up. In the meantime, according to the American Action Forum, (^ same link as above) "In a sense, the AAF study is more relevant to the problem at hand. Obamacare makes healthy people pay more for insurance in order to subsidize sicker people. It makes younger people pay more to subsidize older people. It makes men pay more to subsidize women. It makes everyone pay more to cover benefits, taxes, and fees that consumers might not ordinarily want." "I fully expect that the people who get a good deal out of Obamacare—poorer and sicker individuals—will sign up. The enrollment figures will increase. But the real question isn’t how many people enroll: it’s what kind of people enroll. Two-thirds of the uninsured in America are under the age of 40."

Just saying something doesn't make it so. Medical care costs a lot of money and somebody is going to pay that money. In any event, that somebody certainly will not be the insurance companies or the care providers. Businesses being forced to subsidize this law will close and, if the federal government keeps the heat on the middle class wage earners, the middle class will vanish taking this nation along with them.

[vector]

federal government keeps the heat on the middle class wage earners, the middle class will vanish taking this nation along with them.

this has been going on for more than 30 years where have you been it's more the republicans fault union busting if the unions are strong everybody gets better pay and benifts follow history

[TheRealThing]

federal government keeps the heat on the middle class wage earners, the middle class will vanish taking this nation along with them.

this has been going on for more than 30 years where have you been it's more the republicans fault union busting if the unions are strong everybody gets better pay and benifts follow history

Let's see------ "Republicans are union busters." Now where have I heard that before? Oh yeah, now I got it. Democrats is fer the werkin man and Republicans are union busters. :biglmao:

If there was so much as a shred of evidence to support that charge, you guys would literally wear yourselves out crying about it. It was a lie from the start. A tag put on Reagan because he wouldn't allow the cry baby air traffic controllers, to shut down the whole country by stopping all air travel, mail (said mail FWIW, included social security and disability checks for your info, all acceptable collateral damage when talking about union tactics though, right?) and air freight which included food and medical supplies etc. All because they got beset by delusions of grandeur and demanded more money than they were worth. This concept of fairness applies both ways, the boss deserves to be treated honorably too, not just the union members. But, what the heck, the union busting lie sounded so good, Democrats just couldn't quit telling the lie. Therefore, successive generations of republicans will be slandered by inheritance, with the same lie into perpetuity. Sort of like the no WMD thing, you just can't wear a good lie like that out.

But, all is not lost, when you grow all the way up and take the DNC filter off your ears and the liberal blinders off of your eyes, everything's gonna clear up for you. :biggrin: