.......neither the left nor the right were what they are today.
You finally said something I can agree with. Everything has drifted left, pom, to the point that the Democratic Party is controlled by a bunch of leftist whackos. Essentially they were the pot smoking dropouts of the 60s and 70s that decided to put on coats and ties, and they now control the most radical party in the nation's history, to the point that we now have an administration filled with Marxist and ultra leftist sympathizers, something none of us would have dreamed could have happened 50 years ago. People like Dwight D. Eisenhower would be shocked.
What a crock, parados. Eisenhower in the article I posted criticized both the government and the programs, judgement, and policies of those leaders.
Sure, Eisenhower did that.
Quote:
Are you saying now that we cannot criticize the holier than thou, Barack Obama, the corrupt Chicago community agitator and Marxist sympathizer with Marxist friends and mentors that has no qualifications or experience to be president and is a total and absolute bust as a president, is that what you are saying?
That is NOTHING like what Eisenhower did and it goes against Eisenhower's argument for national unity.
You are attacking him personally without any evidence or support for your claims.
.......neither the left nor the right were what they are today.
You finally said something I can agree with. Everything has drifted left, pom, to the point that the Democratic Party is controlled by a bunch of leftist whackos. Essentially they were the pot smoking dropouts of the 60s and 70s that decided to put on coats and ties, and they now control the most radical party in the nation's history, to the point that we now have an administration filled with Marxist and ultra leftist sympathizers, something none of us would have dreamed could have happened 50 years ago. People like Dwight D. Eisenhower would be shocked.
You don't have one ******* clue what an 'ultra leftist' is. Or a Marxist, apparently. The reason I say this, is b/c you keep accusing Obama of being this and having a admin filled with people like this - yet they have yet to take or advocate a single thing which could be considered Marxist or ultra-leftist.
Plainoldme, I agree that neither the Republican party or the Democrat party have remained the same as they were in previous centuries. That is also true for todays Liberals and Conservatives.
Todays conservatives appear to me to want to rescue and conserve our Liberty, our Constitutional Republic, and our Capitalist Economy. Today's Liberals appear to me to want and to be striving for reductions in all three.
Today's conservatives are equivalent to the liberals that founded our country. We detest evaluating people according to their race, their ethnic group, their gender,or their wealth. Greed for more power, more money OR more property that is obtained morally, ethically AND lawfully is to us praiseworthy. Greed for more power, more money OR more property that is obtained immorally, unethically, OR unlawfully is to us despicable.
The Odems (i.e., Obamademocrats) have advocated and are redistributing wealth from those who lawfully earned it to those who have not lawfully earned it. That all by itself is ultraleftist.
Additionally, the ultraleftists are claiming that their ends justify their means. In otherwords, they claim that whatever it takes to achieve the wealth redistribution they seek and are achieving is not only acceptable to them, it is good.
0 Replies
mysteryman
1
Reply
Mon 26 Apr, 2010 03:48 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
It was "suspicions" that caused the dems to get their panties in a knot about Bush Sr and the "October surprise".
Remember that.
The dems said it had to be investigated because of "the seriousness of the charges and the appearance of impropriety", even though there was no proof, no evidence of any kind, and the entire thing was eventually dropped.
So, why can the dems use "suspiciions" but okie cant?
The last time I checked, being a socialist isn't a crime. I don't see much serious there to investigate based on okie's suspicions even if completely true.
The chickens are (as per conservatives) predictably lining up to roost in the Obamacare henhouse. Conservatives said the Obama debacle would cost us more not less. Although that cost was defined on a couple of levels (Financial and Freedom of choice).
Quote:
A report released Thursday by economic experts at the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) found the new legislation would add 34 million uninsured Americans to the coverage rolls, but at a significant cost " one that neither the president nor his party anticipated as they approach the midterm elections.
“We estimate that overall national health expenditures under the health reform act would increase by a total of $311 billion (0.9 percent) during the calendar years 2010-2019,” the report, authored by the chief actuary for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, read. “Although several provisions would help to reduce health care volts growth, their impact would be more than offset through 2019 by the higher health expenditures resulting from coverage expansions.”
The memorandum also warned the spending hike associated with the legislation may be understated, since the cuts in Medicare may be untenable and impractical. http://www.redstate.com/jrichardson/2010/04/23/national-health-care-spending-to-increase-by-331-billion-says-new-report/
Additionally Phil Klein informs:
Quote:
But for all the talk over the past year about “bending the cost curve down,” CMS (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), the agency that is tasked with tracking national health care expenditures, has now projected that the new law will actually bend the cost curve in the opposite direction. That is, up.
Not surprisingly, CMS notes that, “Numerous studies have demonstrated that individuals and families with health insurance use more health services than otherwise-similar persons without insurance.” Thus, expanding coverage will mean greater usage of health care services. http://spectator.org/blog/2010/04/23/chief-hhs-actuary-finds-obamac
Conservatives then noted that as the cost increased the government would then be forced to keep cost down. Predictable would be the mantra that decreasing “Fraud and Waste” would be a cost control mechanism but this turns out to be of the same relational magnitude as drops and (healthcare cost) oceans. So now comes the next (conservatively predicted) step: Price controls:
Quote:
When President Obama signed his health-care reform last month, he declared it will "lower costs for families and for businesses and for the federal government." So why, barely a month later, are Democrats scrambling to pass a new bill that would impose price controls on insurance?
In now-they-tell-us hearings on Tuesday, the Senate health committee debated a bill that would give states the power to reject premium increases that state regulators determine are "unreasonable." The White House proposed this just before the final Obama- Care scramble, but it couldn't be included because it violated the procedural rules that Democrats abused to pass the bill. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704133804575198322718759844.html
Since those "procedural rules" open all kinds of pandora like scenarios (not the least of which gives a GOP controlled congress hope for a reversal) we shall save further comment on that observation. But, for those so hopeful for the success of Obamacare, perhaps we can look to Romneycare’s shining example in, oh so blue, MA. From the same site:
Quote:
Some 27 states currently have some form of rate review in the individual and small-business markets, but they generally don't leverage it in a political way because insolvent insurers are expensive for states and bankruptcies limit consumer choices. One exception is Massachusetts: Governor Deval Patrick is now using this regulatory power to create de facto price controls and assail the state's insurers as cover for the explosive costs resulting from the ObamaCare prototype the Bay State passed in 2006.
National Democrats now want the power to do the same across the country, because they know how unrealistic their cost-control claims really are. Democrats are petrified they'll get the blame they deserve when insurance costs inevitably spike. So the purpose of this latest Senate bill is to have a pre-emptive political response on hand.
ObamaCare includes several new cost-driving mandates that take effect immediately, including expanding family coverage for children as old as 26 and banning consumer co-payments for preventive care. Democrats are bragging about these "benefits," but they aren't free and their cost will be built into premiums. And those are merely teasers for the many Washington-created dysfunctions that will soon distort insurance markets.
In Massachusetts, Mr. Patrick says his price-control sally will be followed by reviewing what doctors and hospitals charge"or in other words for price controls on the medical services that make up most health spending. ObamaCare will gradually move in the same direction.
For those who can’t see where this is going there is one word that describes the next (conservativelly predicted) step: Governmental Bureaucratic RATIONING. All so predictable, but it was never really about cheap health care for all, now was it President Obama? Of course I omitted the substep where the insurance companys either go out of business or simply become public utiities “regulated” by the government thereby eliminating the need for citizens to have an option, “public” or otherwise.
JM
0 Replies
mysteryman
1
Reply
Mon 26 Apr, 2010 05:00 pm
@parados,
I'm not arguing that.
I am simply saying that "suspicions" have been the reason investigations have started in the past, sometimes with not even that much.
As for what you are saying about okie's "suspicions, I 100% agree with you.
By arguing just having suspicions is enough you are arguing that all suspicions are the same. You know better than that.
0 Replies
okie
0
Reply
Mon 26 Apr, 2010 08:43 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:
You don't have one ******* clue what an 'ultra leftist' is. Or a Marxist, apparently. The reason I say this, is b/c you keep accusing Obama of being this and having a admin filled with people like this - yet they have yet to take or advocate a single thing which could be considered Marxist or ultra-leftist.
Cycloptichorn
So the fact that he compliments and has admired Marxist sympathizers, and the fact that his administration has several that he has appointed do not constitute one clue, cyclops? I suggest that you are the clueless one. Let us take Ron Bloom for instance, his manufacturing czar, no president if he has any awareness at all is going to appoint people that he does not agree with at least approximately. Among the many other questionable appointees of Marxist sympathies, need I mention Anita Dunn appointed as Communications Director by Obama, and Van Jones appointed as green jobs czar. Actually more than sympathies, some of these people are open admirers of communism and / or people like Chairman Mao.
I have posted some of this before, but will post below again the clip of Ron Bloom with his glowing comments about Chairman Mao and condemnation of capitalism. I suppose folks like cyclops have not been able to read this stuff on their own, or I actually suspect they have, but have similar sympathies, in fact cyclops has admitted as much. It is difficult to get Marxist sympathizers like cyclops to admit anything about Obama of course, because he is a another bird that has similar feathers, they flock together and they will always defend each other. I would suggest to cyclops that alot of people have given their last drop of blood defending freedom, and too many people have died under the ruthless communist dictators for me to be quiet abou this, I will not, I will continue to speak up and condemn evil where it exists, and it exists right now in the Obama administration.
We used to spy on such people, and see if they were openly subversive, at least not appoint them to important posts in the administration. American heros as Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman, and others would be turning over in their graves right now to fathom such bizarre behavior by an American president. They very well might be calling for impeachment proceedings to have started yesterday.
We used to spy on such people, and see if they were openly subversive, at least not appoint them to important posts in the administration. American heros as Dwight D. Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, John F. Kennedy, Harry Truman, and others would be turning over in their graves right now to fathom such bizarre behavior by an American president. They very well might be calling for impeachment proceedings to have started yesterday.
You are too funny okie. Where do you think all those "commies" were in the 50s if not in the government? Didn't you listen to ole "Tailgunner Joe"?
0 Replies
ican711nm
0
Reply
Tue 27 Apr, 2010 02:05 pm
@Diest TKO,
THE SOLUTION FOR RESCUING OUR LIBERTY, RESCUING OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC AND RESCUING OUR CAPITALIST ECONOMY
The solution for rescuing our Liberty, rescuing our Constitutional Republic and rescuing our Capitalist Economy is not to repeatedly sound alarms and repeatedly give the reasons for those alarms. The solution is to impeach President Obama, or initiate his removal from the presidency some other lawful way. He is unlawfully leading the transfer of private property from those persons and from those organizations who have lawfully earned it to those persons and organizations who have not lawfully earned it.
Nowhere in the Constitution has the President, the Congress, or the Judiciary been granted the power to transfer private property from those who lawfully earned it to those who have not lawfully earned it. Any branch of the federal government that makes such private property transfers violates the "supreme law of the land," and their "oath or affirmation required by Article VI to support this Constitution".
When any branch of the federal government makes such property transfers, it is exercising powers not granted by the Constitution to the federal government. According to Amendment X, the exercise of such non-granted powers by the federal government violates the Constitution. Thereby, making such property transfers unlawful.
Because President Obama is committing these unconstitutional acts, we have to elect members to the House of Representatives, who will make, second, and debate a motion to impeach President Obama.
Section 1.
…
The President
…
Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Article VI
…
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution;…
You've given your usual bullshit line about people's 'beliefs' and who you think they are admirers of. But what actions have they taken or advocated taking that are 'ultra-leftist or marxist?'
None. And you can't point to any, so why are you even bothering with this weak sauce?
