Hey TAL. Don't you think someone is jerking your chain?

Why Social Security is a failure...
 

It needs a bailout!

http://finance.yahoo.com/focus-retir...-readytoretire




All that money that was deducted from your paycheck for Social Security was spent the moment it came out; and now the Fed needs you to bailout their reckless spending habits!

Congress tells American public to go fuck themselves!
 

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/60932


Transcript of video:

FIRST FRAME:

?The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined.?
--James Madison
Federalist No. 45

SECOND FRAME:

The health care bills approved by the House and Senate both mandate that individuals buy health insurance. Congress has never before ordered Americans to buy anything.

THIRD FRAME:

?The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.?
--Congressional Budget Office Memorandum, August 1994

FOURTH FRAME:

Sen. Orrin Hatch (R.-Utah): ?If that is held constitutional--for them to be able to tell us we have to purchase health insurance--then there is literally nothing that the federal government can?t force us to do. Nothing.?

FIFTH FRAME:

CNSNews.com asked Members of Congress: Where does the Constitution authorize Congress to force individuals buy health insurance?

SIXTH FRAME:

Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy (D.-Vt.)
CNSNews.com: "Where, in your opinion, does the Constitution give specific authority for Congress to give an individual mandate for health insurance?"

Leahy: "We have plenty of authority. Are you saying there is no authority?"

CNSNews.com: "I?m asking--"

Leahy: "Why would you say there is no authority? I mean, there?s no question there?s authority. Nobody questions that."

SEVENTH FRAME:

House Speaker Pelosi Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.)
CNSNews.com: ?Madam Speaker, where specifically does the Constitution grant Congress the authority to enact an individual health insurance mandate??

Pelosi: ?Are you serious? Are you serious??

EIGHTH FRAME:

Sen. Mark Warner (D.-Va.)
?There is no place in the competition, in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution, there is no place in the Constitution that talks about you ought to have the right to get a telephone, but we have made those choices as a country over the years.?

CNSNews.com: ?Does the Constitution give Congress the authority to mandate whether individuals should purchase health insurance ? to mandate that they have to purchase health insurance??
Warner: ?The United States Congress passed laws regarding Medicare and Medicaid that became de facto mandatory programs. States all the time require people to have driver?s licenses. I think that this is a bit of a spurious argument that?s being made by some folks.?

NINTH FRAME:

Sen. Bob Casey (D.-Pa.)
CNSNews.com: ?Where does the Constitution give Congress that authority, for an individual health care mandate??

Casey: ?Well, I don?t know if there?s a specific constitutional provision.

TENTH FRAME:

Sen. Daniel Akaka (D.-Hawaii)
CNSNews.com: ?Does the United States Constitution give the United States Congress the authority to mandate individuals to have health insurance, to carry health insurance?

Akaka: ?I?m not aware of that--let me put it that way. ?

CNSNews.com: ?Is there any specific area of the Constitution that would give Congress the authority to be able to mandate individuals to have to purchase health insurance??

Senator Akaka: ?Not in particular with health insurance. It?s not covered in that respect.

ELEVENTH FRAME:

Sen. Roland Burris (D.-Ill.)
CNSNews.com: ?Federally, if you look at it from a federal standpoint, what area specifically of the Constitution would give Congress the power to mandate an individual to have health insurance??

Senator Burris: ?Well, that?s under certainly the laws of the--protect the health, welfare of the country. That?s under the Constitution. We?re not even dealing with any constitutionality here. Should we move in that direction? What does the Constitution say? To provide for the health, welfare and the defense of the country.?

TWELFTH FRAME:

Sen. Jack Reed (D.-R.I.)
CNSNews.com: ?Specifically where in the Constitution does Congress get its authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance??

Reed: ?Let me see. I would have to check the specific sections. So, I?ll have to get back to you on the specific section. But it is not unusual that the Congress has required individuals to do things, like sign up for the draft.

THIRTEENTH FRAME:

Sen. Bernard Sanders (I.-Vt.)
CNSNews.com: ?Where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority for a health insurance mandate??

Sanders: ?Where in the Constitution? Probably the same place that comes Medicare and Medicaid and the CHIP Program and the Veterans Administration, and the health care programs that we?ve been doing for many, many decades.?

FOURTEENTH FRAME:

Sen. Sherrod Brown (D.-Ohio)
CNSNews.com: ?Where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority for an individual health care mandate??

Brown: ?The same part of the Constitution that allows us to have Medicare. When I hear people that think this is a constitutional issue, my first question to them is, ?Do you want to repeal Medicare?? And some people, politically, are so extreme in this country that they want to repeal Medicare, and I think they?re dead wrong.?

FIFTEENTH FRAME:

Sen. Claire McCaskill (D.-Mo.)
CNSNews.com: ?Specifically where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority to mandate that individuals buy health insurance??

McCaskill: ?Well the -- we have all kinds of places where the government has gotten involved with health care and mandating insurance. In most states, the government mandates the buying of car insurance, and I can assure everyone that if anything in this bill is unconstitutional, the Supreme Court will weigh in.?

SIXTEENTH FRAME:

Sen. Jeff Merkley (D.-Ore.)
CNSNews.com: ?Specifically, where in the Constitution does Congress get its authority to mandate that individuals purchase health care??

Merkley: ?The very first enumerated power is power to provide for the common defense and the general welfare. So it?s right on, right on the front end.?

CNSNews.com: ?Okay, if that?s the case--?

Press Secretary: ?Thank you. I?m sorry, we have to get going. Thank you.?

SEVENTEENTH FRAME:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D.-Calif.)
CNSNews.com: ?Where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority for an individual health insurance mandate??

Feinstein: ?Well, I would assume it would be in the Commerce clause of the Constitution. That?s how Congress legislates all kinds of various programs.?

EIGHTEENTH FRAME:

Sen. Kent Conrad (D.-N.D.)
CNSNews.com: ?Could you specifically say where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority to mandate that individuals get health insurance??

Conrad: ?No, but I?ll refer you to the legal counsel for the Senate and they?re the ones that lead there as the full legal basis for the individual mandate--and I assume it?s in the Commerce clause.?

NINETEENTH FRAME:

Sen. Mary Landrieu (D.-La.)
CNSNews.com: ? What part of the Constitution do you think gives Congress the authority to mandate that individuals have to purchase health insurance??

Landrieu: ?Well, we?re very lucky as members of the Senate to have constitutional lawyers on our staff, so I?ll let them answer that.

TWENTIETH FRAME:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D.-Neb.)
CNSNews.com: ?Specifically, where in the Constitution does Congress get its authority to mandate that individuals purchase health insurance??

Nelson: ?Well, you know, I don?t know that I?m a constitutional scholar. So, I, I?m not going to be able to answer that question.?

TWENTY-FIRST FRAME:

Sen. Richard Lugar (R.-Ind.)
CNSNews.com: ?Where does Congress find the authority to mandate that people buy health insurance??

Lugar: ?I don?t have any idea

TWENTY-SECOND FRAME:

Sen. John McCain (R.-Ariz.)
CNSNews.com: "Senator, on the health care issue, where in the Constitution does Congress get the authority to mandate that individuals get healthcare?"

McCain: "That is an excellent question, and I?m sure that if they pass health care legislation, I think there would be a challenge.?

Their way is the only way!
 

RANDY:

NO!! Conse 'Pubs call it political debate, and in this case Tracy feels it's a matter of equal opinions. The other type of debate is an honest debate. In a political debate evolution vs. creationism are equal opinions.

In their thinking there is NOTHING Obama can do to prove otherwise unless he meets each one in person to hand them an original of his birth certificate, and mark my words this issue will not go away until he leaves The WH--maybe, not even then.

39% of Conse 'Pubs feel that Obama is not an American, and an additional 29% are not sure. That's 68%! These are the people who cannot believe that Bush 43 was questioned.

Notice the recent use of the word r-ded once by R. Emanuel. Palin called for his resignation as the only way for the apology to mean anything, but Limbaugh uses the more offensive r-ard SIX times. That however is repeating Emanuel which is okay, and/or an affront to being to PC, which is more than okay.

TAL

[QUOTE=TracyCoxx;131281]Yeah it was Roberts who flubbed it, but it caused BO to flub it as well, which is why he redid it. My point remains.

QUOTE]

TRACY:

Randy doesn't think you're being serious.

Set him straight.

TAL

I think this whole issue of the birth certificate is nothing more than egregious racism.:censored:

I've wondered that. Because after seeing what he's doing, he's either a complete moron or he's doing on it purpose. Trying to stay on that narrow line where he does the most damage, yet keeps from being impeached.

Before taking office he didn't mince words. He said he was going to fundamentally change America. Also that he wanted to spread the wealth around. He appointed communist revolutionaries as his czars.

He said under his plan for cap & trade, electricity rates would sky rocket. Gee, do you think that's wise to do when we were approaching 10% unemployment and the national debt was skyrocketing? This is either a stupid move or the policy of someone trying to ruin the country.

Have you heard of the Apollo Alliance? They combine environmental policy with labor and social justice. It's run by a self professed communist (although I'm sure that word isn't offensive to you guys). Van Jones was one of the founding members of Apollo. The founder of the corrupt organization, ACORN is also funding Apollo. Jeff Jones, one of the founders of the terrorist group Weather Underground was on the run for about a decade and then caught by the feds. After he got out of prison he now chairs the Apollo Alliance. The Apollo Alliance is a scary group of shady characters, ex-cons, and corrupt organizations. Why then would Obama and Harry Reid have the Apollo Alliance write much of the stimulus package?

When the country is undergoing financial crisis, which ACORN lobbied heavily for its major cause, only an idiot, or someone wanting to ruin the economy would tack on another several $trillion in debt not just last year, but each year following. All this is putting the credit rating of the US in danger. The federal debt limit was just raised almost 100% with Obama's 2010 budget, to $14.3 trillion vs. $7.8 trillion in 2005. The Congressional Budget Office predicts future deficits around 4% through 2020. Get it? America's debt at 84% of GDP will soon pass that toxic 90% trigger point. Right now interest rates are being held artificially low. But eventually, probably before the end of BO's term, the government will have to raise interest rates at least 25% to recoup the money it printed. Don't say I didn't warn you... have your credit cards paid off!

Columbia University sociologists Richard Andrew Cloward and his wife Frances Fox Piven said the best way to bring about the change they sought was to get everyone on welfare, so that the system would eventually collapse under its own weight. The "Cloward-Piven Strategy" seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse. This is a way to change the country, not with revolutionary change, but evolutionary change. The end goal is the same though. A very strong case could be made that the radicals in the Obama administration, including the radical himself, are following the Cloward-Piven playbook to "Fundamentally change America".

Try and follow along. I used the oath of office as an example that BO doesn't want any questions about the validity of his presidency. So why wouldn't he show his birth certificate for the same reason, especially since he wasn't even required to redo the oath of office.

I don't feel that way, and I doubt most other conservatives feel that way.

Well Palin is wrong. She's letting her emotions about her retard child get in the way of policy. Political correctness is the problem, not freedom of speech.

Randolf, why is that racism? This should be standard procedure for ANY presidential candidate.

Two words: Glenn Beck
 

TRACY:

I'm not going to even read posts that sound like a certain show.

TAL

RANDY:

Obama had shown his birth certificate long ago, but here it is 6 to 9 months later, and Conse 'Pubs still want to see the BC. How Hillary & McCain didn't go after this indicates that we can only trust a Conse 'Pub in The WH, no?

I've seen a Conse 'Pub on TV hold the BC in his hand, and not change his tune for even 1 second. So, I say again there is NOTHING Obama can do that they will accept. They will continue to claim they only want to see his BC, because they want to reach the uninformed with fuzzy logic. It's a political debate, which means Obama is not an American is an EQUAL opinion.


TAL

Log into factcheck.org, photos of the birth certificate are there with interviews of the officials in charge of the birth records in Hawaii, who say this whole controversy is ridiculous. Attached is a photo showing the embossed stamp on his birth certificate. Right wing agitators will do anything to stir up trouble.

Yeah, I've got one of those too...

I use more than one source for my info. And I understand if you want to take any excuse you can to try and blow it off rather than address it.

TRACY:

Yes, you have other sources besides Glenn Beck.

Beck says he's a commie, Nazi, and the whole admin. is filled with commies.

Coulter says he's deliberately ruining the country.

Limbaugh says he caused the economy to fail on 9/08.

Hannity says the town hallers were little old ladies.

Levin says he wants to take our money and give it to inner city scum.

So, you want me to offer a counter opinion to Obama in the above accusations that are presented as fact?

TAL

RANDY:

Now do you understand that nothing is good enough!!


TAL

Here's what his administration is made of:
Van Jones - http://www.eastbayexpress.com/gyroba...wFullText=true
"Jones had planned to move to Washington, DC, and had already landed a job and an apartment there. But in jail, he said, "I met all these young radical people of color -- I mean really radical, communists and anarchists. And it was, like, 'This is what I need to be a part of.'" Although he already had a plane ticket, he decided to stay in San Francisco. "I spent the next ten years of my life working with a lot of those people I met in jail, trying to be a revolutionary." In the months that followed, he let go of any lingering thoughts that he might fit in with the status quo. "I was a rowdy nationalist on April 28th, and then the verdicts came down on April 29th," he said. "By August, I was a communist.""

- John Holdren, science "czar" - proposed "compulsory sterilization" and forced abortions to control population.

- Cass Sunstein, regulatory "czar" - proposed bans on hunting and eating meat and proposed that your dog to be allowed to have an attorney in court. And a fairness doctrine for the Internet, which he has since stepped away from. I don't know if commie's want lawyers for dogs, but strange never the less.

- Carol Browner, global warming "czar" - was part of Socialist International, a group for "global governance"

- Ezekiel Emmanuel, health care adviser - proponent of the Complete Lives System, which puts values on lives based mostly by age. Socialist health care.

That's called redistribution of wealth. BO said it himself.

Just an illustration to show how easy this is to do and to show why originals are needed. It's only the presidency.

And for the record, I'm not accusing him of not being a natural born US citizen. I'm just pointing out that it makes himself look suspicious that he doesn't bring forth an original copy of his birth certificate, especially when it's one of the few eligibility requirements for being president.

Well, TracyCoxx, If you are able to explain to me how a czar can be a socialist, you win the sports car!

TRACY:


Paragraph 1: Debate you that Obama is ruining the country deliberately?

Paragraph 2: Debate you about the admin. of commies and czars?

Paragraph 3: Debate you that Obama said electricity rates would skyrocket with his approval?

Paragraph 4: Debate you that the admin. is filled with commies, crooks, and terrorists from day 1, and that these people are controlling legislation?

Paragraph 5: Debate you on numbers from 2020 that are presented as fact, which are presented as 100% due to Obama?

Paragraph 6: Debate you that this is an admin. filled with radicals, run by a radical? That's what Hannity and Levin believe.


With the reality of these issues, I would blow you off?

TAL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlTxGHn4sH4

Oh, I'm just such a right wing whack job.
Want to keep going?

TRACY:

What does Obama have to do to convince you? Please elaborate.

TAL

Congress certifies the votes. They should validate any accompanying paperwork as well. Normally I'd say it's ok to present a copy, but enough questions arose to prompt a federal court to ask BO to present his birth certificate. Up to this point no red flags were raised in my mind. This is the usual behind the scenes stuff you see in an election. But when BO refused and spent millions to block the order, then that got my attention. Considering that candidates routinely present birth certificates, medical records, tax forms, whatever if any issues are brought up to immediately allay any concerns before they fester and become issues.

TRACY:

I summarized what you wrote as issues, and said I wouldn't debate you on. I didn't call you anything. I said what you wanted to debate on, and they are issues I've heard from Coulter, Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and Palin.

No offense, but what I was saying is I won't waste my time defending Obama on attack issues, like Obama is a terrorist. Sorry.

You are saying debate you on these issues, or I'm insulting you, no?


TAL

You said above you wouldn't discuss them because you thought it was all from Glenn Beck, the right-wing whack job. Not that you called him or I that, but it's implied. Sorry if I misunderstood you, but I wasn't sure if english was your 1st language and I didn't quite understand your posting where you summarized my issues. If you don't want to debate those issues, fine. But I consider all of them pretty serious, especially when taken together. And as I've shown on the 3rd issue, the source isn't Beck, Hannity, Limbaugh, Levin, Coulter or Palin. It was Obama. Much of the information I have are direct sources.

TRACY:

Firstly, thank you, for the illiterate insult.

I said they were ATTACK issues!!

Guilt by association, guilt by location.

Association like Bill Ayers equals pals around with terrorists.

Geography like Chicago equals Obama is a crook too.

Example only: McCain hung around with commies for years. How did he get out alive without there being a reason? Just sayin.

These are ATTACK issues, and they are done by political people--like you who despise Obama to begin with without a reason, and hate after you have a reason. The point is to create as many doubts about your political rival as you can.

I know you cannot attack a war hero, or a president (Bush 43) during wartime.

TAL

For gods sake!
 

well said.

Its really sad there is so much hate among conservatives. A little reason and compromise could go a long way toward solving many of our problems. If the hate mongers, Rush, et all would just go away so we could live in peace.
Cant we just love each other as fellow humans? :hug:

On what basis do you claim I despised Obama without reason?

I don't know what to say. I realize now how hateful I've been. All I have to do is think back to when Bush was in office to remember how loving and understanding Democrats were about him. I am sorry, please forgive me and the other conservative hate mongers.

TRACY:

Remember, you said this without a reason attached to it?


TAL

I said
I didn't think I had to put a reason on it. There's 31 pages of my reasons on this thread :lol:

TRACY:

BTW, there was no reason for me to post the entire line, as it had no affect on context. Just pointing that out.

RANDY:

Conse 'Pubs feel that going after Obama every day on every thing is payback for Bush 43. The unwashed inferiors had the nerve to UNJUSTLY criticize Bush 43 for torture, wire tapping, Gitmo, Abu Ghraib, The Iraq War, bin Laden still at large and 112 other questionable actions. And, yes, Tracy will no doubt justify every action from those 8 years that are mentioned above, while there is no justifying a single move by Obama--not one.

Of course, attacking Clinton required no payback, and honestly do you think Conse 'Pubs need a reason to attack Obama? I don't, how 'bout you, Randy?


TAL

Ahhhh No
 

You sound like a contestant for Miss America--that won't happen til the Liberal Dems stop messing with the Consitution, the Bill of Rights and my wallet.

Not hate, Randy, FEAR.

bye bye
 

Well guys, I am "retiring" from this thread, its becoming "threadbare". :(
It's more fun writing erotic stories and thinking about lovely tgirls. :inlove:

RANDY:

They want their country back to the good old days of TAX CUTS!!!


It's all about the full wallet.


TAL

Well it's been stimulating debating with you. You were the most objective of them and you knew what you were talking about. Post your stories ok? :turnon:

What do you mean them?

LOL!!!!!!!

I'll stimulate you, Tracy.

Yeah, you guys are right.
No one on the Left could ever be accused of spreading hate and fear...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLjAahyKfp0

I don't get it??

LOL that was awesome. There was a grown man having a temper tantrum on national TV.

OLBERMAN-The epitomy of the non-prejudiced news anchor--NOT
 

What a jerk---does he think that is going to get him better ratings--I have more people listening to my radio show than him.

JIM:

Translation: Unless you're perfect you cannot criticize the right, because they don't criticize--they ONLY disagree. You're not perfect if there is 1 thing to question, which means they can do a million things you think are wrong.

TAL

^And apparently one cannot criticize the left without receiving a condescending snarky reply in return.

intollerant
 

That is so true.

New Poll Results Are Proof That Republicans Don't Think


A poll commissioned by DailyKos shows just how far to the right the GOP has been dragged by its right wing...and how far out of step they are with the rest of America.
February 5, 2010 |

http://www.alternet.org/images/manag...71.jpg_310x220


LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?
Join our mailing list:
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest News & Politics headlines via email.





Advertisement



A village cannot revise village life to suit the village idiot. -- Frank Schaeffer

On Tuesday, the Daily Kos published a new Research 2000 study showing the current state of belief in the GOP. Though the results aren't anything new -- indeed, the study just puts hard numbers to everything we already thought we knew about the right wing -- the data also show, in sharp detail, just how far to the right the GOP has been dragged by its right wing...and how far out of step they are with the rest of America as a result.
The data also show that Frank Schaeffer was more than fair in characterizing these people as America's "village idiots." For one thing, they really are a bitterly small minority. Last week, I laid out some numbers of my own, which showed that the conservative movement as it's currently constituted only represents the views of about 25 to 30 percent of Americans. (And, historically, that's about as big as conservative movements ever get in the US -- though it's plenty big enough to do some real damage.) Furthermore, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll done last October, only about 20 percent of Americans currently identify as Republican, which is a 40-year low. There's nothing about our current GOP that can be supportably described as "mainstream."
Kos's pollsters did a valiant job of getting inside the heads of this 20 percent. But the story they tell also shows how severe the conservatives' level of derangement has become; and just how little introspection the conservatives have done to reckon with the causes and consequences of their own failures. And it also documents the vast chasm this willful refusal to deal with reality is creating between this noisy minority and the vast majority of Americans.
To grasp the size of the gap, you only have to compare Kos' numbers on conservative beliefs with the most current available stats on the attitudes of the country as a whole. So -- that's what I did below. This discussion doesn't address all of the the questions in Kos's summary, because good data wasn't available on some of them; but a look at most of the high points gives you an accurate picture of just how far out of the mainstream the GOP is pulling.
Should Barack Obama be impeached, or not?
Yes 39
No 32
Not Sure 29
Over a third of Republicans say Obama should be impeached. ("For what? Who the heck knows?" asks Kos. The beauty of being a village idiot is that you never have to explain yourself.) Nearly another third think it's an open question; only one-third say no.
But out in the Real America, Obama's Gallup approval ratings are well within the normal range for a one-year president. Since his TV appearances last week, they're up over 50% again -- and, as Rachel Maddow notes, the Omentum is rising.
Do you think Barack Obama is a socialist?
Yes 63
No 21
Not Sure 16
OK, fine. All faithful FOX watchers know that Obama is a socialist. But the problem for the village idiots is: it's increasingly true that socialism is a terrifying boogeyman that only they can see. For them, it's Mao and Stalin. For the rest of us, it's just another day of government-built roads and schools.
An April 2009 Rasmussen poll (and remember, Rasmussen's findings generally skew rightward) found that only 53% of Americans thought that capitalism was better than socialism. A full 20% though we could do with some more socialism around here; and 37% didn't have an opinion either way.
When nearly half the country no longer thinks that Socialism is Evil Incarnate, red-baiting just doesn't pack much of a political punch any more.
Do you believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama?
Yes 53
No 14
Not Sure 33
For those of you thinking the "village idiot" metaphor is bit of hyperbole, consider for just a moment the sheer surreality of the idea that there could be any group, anywhere, in which half of everybody thinks that Sarah Palin would make a good president. Enough said?
But let's skip ahead to the facts. Which are these: A CBS News poll taken two weeks ago found that 71% of Americans do not want to Sarah Palin to run for president in 2012. Only 20% of us (apparently the same ones the Kos poll talked to) think this is a good idea.


Okay, I am not making personal comments on this thread, but I thought this article would be "educational".

ILA:

Hopefully, your politics in Canada are more pleasant than ours here south of the border. Me, I'm a Mod Dem, who went from slightly left of center to left of center after 8 years of Bush-Cheney.

It's been my experience that the left is willing to compromise, hear another opinion, realistic criticism, and honest debate. That said, the right likes political debate, which breaks down everything to equal opinions. In other words, Obama is not an American is equal and opinion only to those of us who think he's an American.

Me, If Obama pulled some of the stunts Bush pulled, I'd bust on him myself. Right now, Obama has 5 or 6 questionable actions, but it's too soon to say if any will turn out to be Bush-like.

TAL

What 5 or 6 actions do you consider questionable?

Tal, just for the record, all I was saying with my post -- or rather letting Keith Olbermann make my point for me -- is that broad blanket statements like Randolph made ("Its sad there is so much hate among conservatives. If the hate mongers, Rush, et all would just go away so we could live in peace") and that Jim made ("Not hate, Randy, FEAR") really hold no water when statements of EQUAL anger and fear mongoring are made on the Left TOO.

Look, do I think Rush often goes over the top? Absolutely.
Do I think a Sean Hannity or Glenn Beck can go over the top? I do.
There -- I'll admit it and put it on the record.

But at the same time that you are trying to get that concession out of me, you can't honestly expect me (or others) to just look the other way and ignore the bitterness coming from the Left as well. Otherwise we'd have the equivalent of you and me squaring off in a boxing ring, at which point you say, "I'd like us to have a fair match." And then as soon as I say "sure" and start to turn, to go to my corner, you quickly blurt out "But I'm allowed to get in a sucker punch first!" KA-POW!

I mean, come on -- fair is fair. If you or anyone else on the Left wants me (or others) to denounce over-the-top ravings of a Rush Limbaugh or whoever, then the Left has to likewise admit to (as I showed with my clip) that the frothing at the mouth ravings of people like Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow, etc, are EQUALLY nutty.

In fact, since we're on the topic of simply spreading hate or fear, allow me to present Liberal radio and TV host Ed Schultz on MSNBC just tonight, as he discusses Sarah Palin's speech at the Tea Party Convention with Bob Shrum, Democratic strategist and perpetual party hack, who decided NOT to discuss her speech on intellectual grounds, but chose instead to take a cheap personal shot at Palin by bitterly declaring: "She came across as a merchant of hate with an oh gosh smile." Wow, that's some real Ivy League intellectual analysis there, huh?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3pre0VgX5s


So, I'll repeat what I said before: Yeah, you guys are right.
No on on the Left could ever be accused of peddling hate or fear themselves.
(insert mocking eye roll here)

Politics here is just as bad with the left full of self righteous indignation at the right for doing the same things that the left did when they formed the government. The left leaning media doesn?t help the situation either because they continually criticize the right while neglecting to mention that the left did the same things, only more often.

Attack ads against opponents are all too common now. No politician ever discusses issues anymore. They are all like a bunch of children on one long temper tantrum. One group of politicians accuses a second group of lying who accuse a third group of lying who accuse the first group of lying.

There is no leadership in politics anymore. No one is in it for the good of the country and the people. They are all there to feed at the public trough, ensure that they and their buddies have a regular paycheck, and cause never ending headaches and problems for the citizens that they are supposed to serve (this is a bit of an exaggeration as some politicians are altruistic, just not enough are). This applies to all the parties and not any particular one.

Would you say this applies to Barack Obama?

C-MIN:

Firstly, I'm in the middle with a view to the right and the left, and there is a big slant to the right in combativeness. Schultz is a far-left guy that I stopped watching after 6 weeks, but he is no match for Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Levin. He's behind them in 5th place for over the top. Olbermann, Maddow and O'Reilly are behind the big 5. Mathews and Van Sustern are the fairest of the lot, and ALL on both sides are biased by nature, which shows in their wording.

Secondly, my interest in politics cannot be satisfied by honest debate, because that requires 2 sides to be honest. So, I look for weak arguments to feast on, because I'm offered no other choice. I find whose-side-are-you-on arguments to be offensive. It should be a debate of facts, and not a charlatan sporting event.

Thirdly, I wasn't trying to get you to admit something; I was pointing out an argument that stated the other side does it: equal.

Personally, I don't care who is in The WH from Conse 'Pub to Lib Dem, but just do the job. Granted, I'm more left of center than ever after 8 years of The Clinton-Ken Starr Admin., after 8 years of Bush-Cheney with 118 questionable actions, and after 1 year of daily attacks on Obama. Obama has gotten more in 1 year than Bush got in 8 years, and it's not just the pols. It's the right media, and citizens.

Example: Don't tell me we are threatened by a country that is militarily 60% of what it was 12 before, when its army couldn't surrender fast enough. That that is more of a priority than getting bin Laden, and you expect me to trust your judgement as president? That means whether you're Clinton, Bush or Obama, I don't want to hear what I can see thru. This is just me, which is why Palin is so unappealing to me.

As far as Obama's questionable actions, I'll name 8.

TRACY:

1. 50 Gitmo prisoners who'll be imprisoned for life without charge, and/or with tarnished evidence (waterboarding).

2. Wiretapping continues.

3. No Wall Street restrictions for a year.

4. Pushing for bi-partisanship with pols who opening brag they will negotiate in poor faith to slow down and stop legislation only.

5. Upping The Afgan War with more troops after 8 years.

6. The Iraq War not ending soon enough.

7. Not prosecuting war crimes above the legalized torture of Yoo

8. and below is very quiet.

1 is not having enough info to find a better action.
2 is not talked about to show a change has been made.
3 is now heading in the right direction, but it's way too early.
4 is what's wrong with politics, and I feel it may be more than a 1-person job for anybody.
5 might be the right choice, but need to know more of what's going on.
6 seems to be slow, but that could be just me.
7 might be the best option for the country, or not.
8 appears to be a little too quiet.


I only say 118 questionable Bush actions, some are no longer questionable, because none are prosecuted.

So, Conse 'Pubs, bring a crap argument and I'll bring a mop.

TAL

There's no argument, the right-media is letting BO have it. But at the same time, BO does things that should prompt an objective journalist to ask probing follow up questions and the left-media just lets it go. Also, the administration wants to (sometimes demands to) preview questions whenever possible. That's not how it's supposed to work.

She's unappealing to me too. Politically that is. Other than that, she's kinda hot.

This is a tough one. Presumably they only wiretap questionable people, and it has netted results. On the other hand, they could wiretap anyone. But do they? Who knows?

That's that free market thing.

Polls show that the american people are against health care and out of control government spending. There is no one in congress with voting power to represent these people who are the majority. So republicans use the only tool they have which is to slow down or stop legislation.

I'm not sure about this one because I've never heard from BO what our goal in Afghanistan is, or what his larger picture of the war on terror is, if any.

I'm fine with this war ending because we have for the most part won it.

huh?

below what?

From what I've seen there are multitudes of gripes attributed to Bush, when what's really going on isn't so black and white. And also things like Abu Ghraib being blamed on Bush when it was actually service men & women who committed those acts on their own.

And this summarizes my thoughts pretty well about the start of the Iraq war...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5p-qIq32m8

These are ideological selections, and the MSM doesn't condemn Obama for not governing like Bush or a conservative, which is what the right does.


That free-market thing happened when they deregulated, and they got 1929 again. If there were no rules & regulations, greed would reign supreme. It's happened twice, and today gaming the system makes it even more necessary. Greed needs to be policed to the point of protecting those who can get screwed even if they do everything right.

If it was only health care, it would look legit, but it's only yes on Bush's policies continued.

My point was that it has been made clear, that even if you give them everything they want, they'll vote no.

Not prosecuting war crimes above (covered by) the legalized torture of John Yoo, and below (not covered by) is very quiet.

Waterboarding has been considered a war crime for years, except to Bush-Cheney.

I use my own list, and Obama is on track for 64, compared to 118 for Bush. If half prove to be true, that would make 59 for Bush.

The Bush ones are a combo of Bush & Cheney, and there are none for Biden, yet.



TRACY:

My view of a questionable action is one where a poor selection was made. If a better choice was available at the time, it was a bad selection. If it turns out to be the best of bad choices, then it was a good selection.

These are not ideological-based actions, and do not favor either side. It does include actions that are or have a good chance of being known by the pres. or VP, and could have been stopped.

Of Bush's 118, some have proven on target; some are still open; but none have been validated, yet.


TAL

Obama is an idiot who has no concept of a free society. the only opinion he seeks is his own and is the most dishonest and deceitful president we have ever had. I for one am sick of his lies and his wasteful spending policies that are going to drive us into a debt we will be unable to pay. I pity our childern and what he is doing to our values

Palin in 2012?
 

And your opinion of Palin is?

If a Republican got elected, we would still have been here debating about how bad things are turning out. The government cannot admit that they cannot control the future, if they PANIC would ensue:p

Palin will not be the republican front runner.

I doubt she will ever become president. I share some of her views but like obama she lacks any experience to be President. hopefully those that voted for obama will remember how it was pointed out numerous times he never had a real job and was absent or failed to vote the majority of time he was in the senate. so he obviously lacked integrity and commitment to those that elected him.

the spend at all cost political hacks we have in office now are not listening to the american people and hopefully we can get rid of them in 2010. what ever happened to "We the People" . have Obama lovers forgotten why they elected him in the first place? the independants sure understand now how much of a liar and phoney he turned out to be and how until recently (only when forced to) the congress and senate didn't care one bit or listen to the american people just rubber stamp king obama and drive the country into socialism.

like Margret Thatcher once said. " the thing about socialism is that eventually they run out of other people money".

Well I for one worked hard for what i have and have no intention of following obamas plan to "redistribute the wealth to those who who only want wants given to them so they become more reliable on big gov"t.

I like freedom of choice and then living by the consequences of my own actions; be they good or bad, that is what American is all about, and what I have faught for during my 26 years serving my country in the Military.

TRACY:

That wasn't the question. It was his opinion of Palin period.

TAL

Set your GPS to "nowheresville" and you will eventually wind up in a small community of all white people, all republican, and no doors will be locked because there's no crime, and everybody knows everybody, and life is as simple as family values.

I guess you're for transsexuals serving openly in the military then, right?

Tea Party
 

Partial piece by Stewart Watley, Huffington Post



Though the movement claims to have no defined leadership, there are public figures and entities who nevertheless carry that mantle, which has led to perhaps its greatest irony: A portion of the American populace who carries a populist banner against the coddling of greedy bankers is led by some of the country's most cynical and base profiteers.
When the movement was christened last April for a large tax day protest, it was derived wholesale from the efforts of a registered corporate lobbyist and a right-leaning cable news network, whose president recently pointed out that it's all about ratings. At the Tea Party's national convention last weekend, its keynote speaker was a former governor who quit midterm in order to peddle a book that she didn't write, but for which she collects most of the royalties. If this were Iran's Green Movement, these would be the people slinging marked-up green headbands on the street corner.
Of course, the Tea Party is not without its whistleblowers. The $500 per plate entry fee to last week's convention almost led to it being canceled altogether. But the exodus of reasonable elements will only homogenize the movement further towards a particularly polarizing worldview that opens itself to continued profit-driven exploitation.
In Authoritarianism & Polarization in American Politics, a revealing work of political science published last year that unfortunately went somewhat unnoticed, Marc J. Hetherington and Jonathan D. Weiler describe a specific worldview -- authoritarianism -- which they argue lies at the heart of political polarization in modern American politics. (It should be noted: their use of the term is not related to the more quotidian and overly negative connotation associated with despotic regimes; rather, it describes a particular lens through which certain people view the world, based on a wide range of scholarly work spanning the fields of psychology, sociology, political science, and other cognitive sciences.)
According to Hetherington and Weiler, authoritarians tend to rely more on emotion and instinct in decision-making, view politics in black and white, resent confusion or ambiguity in the social order, and are suspicious of specific groups who they believe could alter that order (typically gays and immigrants). The difference between authoritarians and nonauthoritarians, according to the authors, becomes far more pronounced during tumultuous economic or social periods when there are more perceived "threats". During such times, authoritarians in particular lose accuracy motivation and, "become much less interested than nonauthoritarians in seeking information that [is] balanced in its approach, and much more interested in pursuing one-sided information that reinforc[es] existing beliefs." Or in other words, they are highly susceptible to misinformation campaigns, the likes of which pervaded the health care reform debate last summer.
Most every characteristic of an authoritarian worldview lends itself well to the impassioned rhetoric of the Tea Party movement and the shrewd players operating behind the scenes and atop the soap box. The movement's overly simplified, often-confused solutions to complex problems align with authoritarians' Manichean worldview. That Tom Tancredo's anti-immigrant laced speech at last weekend's convention was well received comes as no surprise. And that this is the group who so often embraces proven falsehoods and spin-narratives to defend its anti-administration agenda should speak for itself with regards to accuracy motivation.
Despite criticism it receives, the Tea Party continues to be praised as a political force. It is loud, passionate, and generally unconcerned with pesky things like facts or reasoned, practical solutions to the country's problems. This bodes ill for 2010's political environment, and it is a shameful representation of what constitutes an American political or social movement. While the Tea Party may alienate some who see it for the profit-machine that it is, others who share the fearful, intolerant authoritarian worldview that it is increasing coalescing around will be lured in and pitted against the very people in power who could actually help them. That this movement has grown political legs is too bad, and by Hetherington and Weiler's account, it means even more polarization is yet to come.

RANDY:

Accurate motto!!



TAL

Peace at last
 

Sounds great doesn't it :yes:

Ahhh yes, but it was my answer ;)

Sounds peaceful. Hopefully it's within an hour of a ski resort too.

Cute, but completely backwards.

who really cares anymore I'm retired now

obama still is an idiot and we can't afford his socialistic stance and his hate for individual liberties and freedoms if he continues to apologize and bow to foreign contries for America being free, then he diserves to be impeached

I'm done with this topic

Miss me yet? lol

Let's try this, maybe I can get through.....


Odama is Go0b

Yeah, and that Obama guy too

Doomed!
 

New York Times, Paul Krugman

February 10, 2010, 10:59 am Well, you guys are going to have a hard time accusing him of being a Socialist after this.:frown::censored:

I'd say Bill Clinton was at his greatest BECAUSE of Wall St. I recall that all the guys at my office who had Thrift Savings Accts were on schedule to retire as full fledged Millionaires, then Bush came in.
When Democrats talk about helping "poor" people, the poor people react like republicans because poor people don't think of themselves as poor people, they think of themselves as "working" people.
There's not a true American alive who doesn't secretly want to be rich as a Wall St Banker. You don't get rich getting money, you get rich saving money. And for that you need Banks.

RANDY:

Sorry, you're wrong. They will forever call him a socialist, like they do with FDR. If they still are asking for a birth certificate with Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers still as open issues also, you can forget them stopping anything. I'm surprised they aren't blaming the stock market on him lately.

We bashed Bush for torture, The Iraq War, Katrina, Abu Gharib, bin Ladin's freedom, Gitmo and others. So, social security, Medicare, unemployment comp. and other government programs are socialism. And all socialism is Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Commie, FDR, Lenin and others. We are entitled to an opinion, but not facts.

TAL

Yeah Randy. Don't you know that all those issues have been resolved? He did bring his original birth certificate. It has been conclusively shown that Jeremiah Wright doesn't hate whites, capitalism or apple pie, and that at no time during BO's 20 years attending Wright's services did Wright ever utter a disparaging word about America. And come on... Bill Ayers was cleared of any wrong doing and he's a sweet old school teacher. And yet STILL republicans bring up these issues.

Actually the whole thing's a strawman argument. It's TAL who likes to bring up these issues. But I will continue to bring up the socialist direction BO is taking us.

Ok class... from Webster:
Socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

TAL
for definitions 1 and 2b. Do you deny that BO has tried to grow the government, and incorporate banks, insurance companies, car companies and health care into the government?

definitions 2a and 3: He's limited CEO salaries. He's raising taxes on the wealthy and lowering taxes on the poor & middle class while directing taxes to the poor via welfare. He hasn't gone all the way on this yet, but do you deny that BO advocates "sharing the wealth"?

TRACY,

Did you miss this:

So, social security, Medicare, unemployment comp. and other government programs are socialism. And all socialism is Stalin, Mao, Hitler, Commie, FDR, Lenin and others.


I said it was socialism, and it's been here since 1932.

All socialism is prevalent in bad countries: UK, Canada, France, Germany, etc.

The difference is that there is good and bad socialism, like there is good and bad capitalism.


Do you buy the Obama birth certificate if not every one of his opponents gets an original copy hand delivered from Hawaii by their governor, and if one opponent doesn't get that other-than-special treatment, his citizenship is still in question.

Don't tell me you've accepted a copy on an Internet web site?

Usually Conse 'Pubs will stick to their facts unless they are questioned strongly.


RANDY:

Aren't you OUTRAGED that Obama mispronounced the word corpsman 4 times?

FOUR times!!!!!!!!!!!!

Do you believe the GAUL of The Libs to point out that Newt said that the shoe bomber was American?

TAL

Unemployment
 

The rich take care of their own. The poor bastards that do the work are out in the cold.

Miss me??
 

G W Bush who?

RANDY:


My answer is YES, and I like you being away.



TAL

Sorry you don't have a sense of humor.:(

RANDY:

I wasn't trying to be funny, when I said I like missing him.

I liked your humor though.


TAL

Look for stage II of the "Good cop, bad cop" Obama administration, starting with the 50+1 reconciliation on Health Care. Watch Obama take the leash off Rahm Emanuel this election year. Democrats will take a hit this November, but by 2012 people will be going back to work. The Health Care Bill is Obama's Iraq War. If it is a success, he'll be a genius. If it is a disaster, he'll be an idealist fool. Send in Emanuel to make sure it works.

If it is a success it will be the first time a government program is well managed and efficient. Besides... Obama wouldn't use reconciliation (or the nuclear option) to pass health care. That's against everything the democrats stand for.

Here BO calls the nuclear option...
So I don't know why the prospect of Obama using the nuclear option, or reconciliation is even coming up.

Medicare is 44 years old, time for a colonoscopy. The entire medical profession is based upon how to charge ten bucks for a Viagra pill. It doesn't matter what this Bill says, it's going to be rewritten a hundred times over the next generation anyway, what matters is that the Medical Profession starts healing American Citizens. Once people see that, the Republicans will never be able to take it away.

Non-Believers prepare to gaze in wide wonder next week as Obama seperates the RED SEA and lets his People go-go to the USA of the FUTURE.
"We have here only five loaves of bread and two fish," said the Republicans.
"All shall be fed" said Obama. And it was so.

Watch for Obama 2010 Election strategy after Healthcare is passed. Go HARD after Corporations and the Supreme Court Ruling that allows unlimited Corporate Donations. It should be interesting to see which side the Republicans line up with.

I was kind of hoping he'd go campaign for democratic candidates out there. :lol:

Patiently waiting for Tracy to abandon the party of "they can't do anything either" and get on the Obama Bus. A future where all Americans can get a Hand up. not a Hand out.

I am not a big fan of the republican party. Mostly because of the fact that most that I have met are bible thumping assholes...

Be a conservative libertarian then. It's a shame that republicans have hitched their trailer to the bible thumpers.

Bullshit.

Al Sharpton: "We would have to say America overwhelmingly voted for socialism when they voted for Barack Obama."

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

By now I think the fact that Obama is a socialist is blindingly obvious, and the fact that you Obama lovers haven't realized it yet only shows how far you've got your head buried.

Oh I think November will be quite productive. And conservatives have always been for a hand up rather than a hand out.

So way to go dems. I've always wondered where the DEMOCRA part of democrats came from. Certainly not from DEMOCRAcy because it seems that whenever necessary they abandon democratic principles and go socialist totalitarian dictator on us. The only thing bi-partisan about national health care was the opposition to it. Despite Obama's promise to have health care debates out in the open without back room deals, that's exactly what happened even though democrats had a super-majority for so long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwrzsLYt-uI

Teddy Roosevelt and Dick Nixon were for Health Care too.
 

TRACY:

Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Unemployment Comp., and Welfare are Socialism. Health Care is Socialism.

All Socialism is evil? Canada, UK and France are NOT Communism, Marxism, Nazis, and dictatorial enemies.

As a Libertarian, you want all socialism eliminated. How 'bout people being turned away from emergency rooms based on ability to pay? Isn't that Evil Socialism to save someone's life who cannot pay on the spot for it?


TAL

Social Security is supposed to be a backup retirement plan, not plan A. But so much of your money goes to relatively safe, low yield SS that for many people that's the only retirement they can afford, and it's inadequate. Give people the freedom to make their own retirement decisions. And if someone chooses to blow their savings on Bon-Bons why is it my responsibility to bail them out?

Medicare and Medicaid are fine, but it would be better handled by private industry with regulations.

Unemployment Compensation... why cant people save more? In our society we put so much on credit cards, we buy homes and cars with loans and put ourselves in so much debt, and when we lose a job we're screwed. If we saved more and limited ourselves to buying things we can actually afford there wouldn't be so much need for unemployment compensation would there?

Welfare gives millions of people an excuse to sit on their fat ass and not try to get a job.

And you may think national health care sounds good now. That's because all the gotchas come after BO's first term so they don't mess up his re-election bid. And let's face it, it's all about him now isn't it? That's what he told responsible democrats who were not going to vote for Obamacare until he strong armed them and told them how bad it's going to make him look if Obamacare doesn't get passed. After 2014 get ready to pay out the ass for health care. And before then, your health insurance premiums will go up because insurance companies know they are going to get screwed from Obamacare so they will spend the next 4 years raising their rates.

Unless Obamacare is struck down in court, which is very likely to happen. 37 states are objecting to Obamacare and several have filed lawsuits against it. Obamacare excludes the Amish and Christian science people for their religious reasons. But if you're catholic and object to it because it takes your tax money and pays for other people's abortions you don't get to opt out because of your religious reasons. This is a clear violation of separation of church and state where congress shall make no law favoring any religion over another. And many individuals will file law suits because the government simply has no right (assuming the constitution means anything) to force them to buy health care.

And even if it does somehow bypass all these constitutional potholes, the fact is it will not lower the deficit like BO claims. That's ridiculous. It will raise our debt even more, which we cannot afford, and it will lower the quality of health care for the 85% of Americans who are satisfied with their health care.

It's not as simple as democrats claim: Do you want free health care?? Sure, why the hell not?

If they were truthful about it the question would be: Do you want more expensive health care that's lower quality than what you currently have?
Hell no!

And that's what the vast majority of Americans are telling their lawmakers. But they failed to represent their constituents, and that's why there's the Tea Party movement - No taxation without representation!

The Majority of people favor the Health Bill.

Hee hee hee Haw haw..Hee hee hee Haw haw....

How Far The Mighty Have Fallen
 

Karl Rove was on MSNBC this morning trying to explain how bi-partisan his Administration was and how pissing a trillion dollars into the Iraq sand was more Noble than funding a trillion dollars for the Health of 32 million Americans.
He took a cheap shot at Chuck Todd on his way out and compared Savannah Guthrie to the vacuuous Bimbos on Fox News.
Looks like the Grand Old Party has been reduced to the bitter snarls and insults of the TeaBag Party.

TRACY:

Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in ANY FORM are SOCIALISM, Tracy.

The RR law to NOT turn away people from the ER is socialism, Tracy. Pure capitalism is to make money, not save lives. Ins. Cos. are there to make a profit off of your life, death and sickness. Give a sick person insurance, not in America under pure capitalism.

Teddy Roosevelt & Dick Nixon wanted health care, aka socialism, Tracy.


So, save the socialism-is-Stalin BS for conservative drones.

I say there is good and bad socialism, and we will always differ.

Libertarians believe that you find anything, and everything you can to not give anyone government aid until the pool of people is too small to help even ONE person.

Yeah, the tea party is little old ladies who wouldn't harm a wing on a fly.

Imagine how they are being slimed as slurring congressman: 3 black with the n-word (1 spit on), 1 gay, 1 Mexican. In the face of a man with Alzheimer's, is that even possible? Bricks thru windows of congressional offices of Dems who voted for health care. Assassination threats to congressmen and their families. Point is that they don't want to use fire arms on these dumbocrats for health care. All they are asking in the nicest way possible is for them to change their vote from for to against. That's all they want is to kill the bill, and not the people who passed it.


TAL

Now come back to the real world.

In U.S., 45% Favor, 48% Oppose Obama Healthcare Plan
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126521/Fa...care-Plan.aspx

And the dems continue to lie. Seriously... I have never seen such a large group of consistent liars. Tell me again how much Bush spent on the Iraq war?

Not ANY form. Only in forms that are run by the government. Look up the definition of socialism.

It is in part. It is also hospitals raising rates for patients with insurance to pay for those who don't have insurance.

Insurance companies (yes I'll take the time to type it out just for you) are there to fill a need. People need medical coverage, they are there to provide a way to do that. Yes... big shock, it costs money to do that. Muh ha ha ha... yes MONEY!!!! Ha ha ha!!!!

Libertarians believe that you actually have to have a balanced budget. We don't have a balanced budget, therefore WE CANNOT AFFORD NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE! Is that so hard to understand? That you have to pay for these services? If it's not evil corporations paying for it, then it's the government paying for it. Either way the money comes from us, or as the democrats, progressives and socialists would like - from China. Libertarians have the audacity to say we have to pay for our own lifestyle. If we didn't have a debt and had positive money flow, then yeah, national health care would be affordable. But right now our country is broke and we have to get spending under control.

Is that what they're showing on CNN these days?

What are you even talking about?

What was that quote? Something about if the government does not serve its people, the people have a right to revolt? These people do not feel that their representatives are representing them. Whining about a few bricks.... They should be glad they are not being forcefully overthrown.