Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Voters want better, more accountable government.


It is a common misconception that voters simply “voted for a ‘change’” when they voted for Barack Obama for President in 2008. I would submit that voters voted for a more accountable government. Voters had actually begun to express their dissatisfaction with our elected officials in Washington much earlier, in the mid-term Congressional elections of 2006, and they continued to express their dissatisfaction with the “status quo” by electing a President of the opposing party in 2008. Barack Obama’s timing just happened to be perfect. He came along with his mantra of "change"”, offering comforting sounding themes, at a time when many voters had become disillusioned with government, fatigued after 7 years of war and nervous about the slowing economy.

His Republican opponent, Senator John McCain, offered “change” in leadership, but to the frustrated and “Bush fatigued” voters, McCain was too much like Bush. As ironic as that may seem considering McCain’s moderate reputation and his “Maverick” history of differing with his party leadership, he still represented “the past” in most voters minds, especially the millions of new voters Obama attracted to the polls. Voters wanted to look to a new future, a future of new ideas, and Barack Obama offered a fundamental change in direction, a “new approach” and hopefully better, not "bigger", government. “Hope” if you will, was summarized by his campaign theme of “Yes we can !”
It is now stunning to see how quickly that "hope” has seemed to fade, ( http://www.abcnews.go.com/PollingUnit/obamas-approval-ratings-low-economy-health-care/story?id=9342510&ros=true ) and Americans have continued to voice their unhappiness, not only with the performance of their elected representatives, but with the direction of the country as a whole. Voters seem to have realized that “change” for change’s sake is not what they wanted, or what America needs ! Last summer, Americans of every political stripe across the country attended townhalls held by their Congressmen and Senators, they rallied at “Tea Parties” to voice their concerns, and they have been speaking out by writing letters to the editor and calling their elected representatives in Lansing and Washington to voice their opinions and concerns.

This, in my opinion, is the “silver-lining” in our current situation. The crisis we have suffered through has the potential to make us a better, stronger country. It has mobilized and energized millions of Americans to vote, speak out and become active in our government at every level.

We are witnessing a historic time in our country. Yes, it is a time of “change”, but the change is not yet finished. In a sense the most important part of the change has just begun, the return of the American people’s participation in their government. The Founding Fathers envisioned a country governed by “We the people …”, and as President Abraham Lincoln reminded us in his Gettysburg Address during our nation’s most trying time, the Civil War, our constitution created a government ‘of the people, by the people, for the people”. I have confidence in the ability of “We the people” to not only survive the current crisis, but for our country to emerge a stronger, better democracy.

91 comments:

  1. The Tea Party and their ilk is not the change people want either.

    President Obama was handed the biggest pile of crap in decades on many fronts, 2 wars, an economy in crisis, a manufacturing sector, especially the auto industry on the verge of bankruptcy, at least GM and Chrysler and Ford wasn't in much better shape, Banksters on Wall Street running wild and a host of other problems.

    What I think you need to look at is what if President Obama had not taken the steps he had.

    GM does look like it's going to survive, the banks have survived, although more help needs to go directly to homeowners, home sales are on the rebound, banks have started to pay back the TARP funds to taxpayers, the House just passed a jobs bill, the GDP is growing again, unemployment while way too high is starting to decline, so there are lots of signs America is recovering from the disaster that was handed over to the Obama administration.

    The people were involved in the election in 2008 and 69 million people voted for President Obama. While I have issues with some of things President Obama has done, like expanding the war in Afghanistan, and his lack of leadership on health care reform, when taken together, we are better off today than we were when he took office.

    Quit your bitching, Brian, and grab a broom and help out. Republicans have been of no help whatsoever. 0 votes on the the stimulus, 0 votes on health care, 0 votes on the jobs bill that just passed the House and on and on.

    If you were so concerned about your liberty and freedom, where the hell were you during the Bush administration? That's when our liberty and freedom were taken away, not during the current administration.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Trying as hard as I can I cannot think how any of my liberties were being taken from me but now I have democrats trying to rule over my health care and threatening me with jail if I dont purchase a policy.
    Better off? with higher unemployment more jobs destroyed and a tripling of the deficit and the nation being buried in debt our national soveirgnty being sold out from under us a pervert as safe schools czar pushing his sickness on our kids and on and on and on all day long, I just cant figure out how we as a nation are better off.
    And the polls keep showing that more and more people are also coming to that realization.

    ReplyDelete
  3. And Obama and the Democrats took that pile of crape and made it bigger and much worse. But all the fat cats in Washington and Wall St. are loving Obama and the Democrats. All these idiot Democrats can do is point at the other guy instead of doing the job. The libs are going to be thrown out of DC by the end of Obamas first term.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Doug, I think you're being entirely unfair to the Democrats and President Obama.

    Health care reform, no matter how many times you say it, is not a government takeover. And you seem to forget or neglect to mention that 40% of health care is already run by the government and it's done very well, Medicare, Medicaid, and Tricare for veterans all get high marks.

    All we are trying to get is competition for the private insurance companies to try to contain private insurance costs.

    Do you really think that the Republicans would have done better? Republicans are loved by Wall Street and the fat cats even more than the Democrats. That's how we got where we are.

    Unemployment has gone higher, but there unemployment doesn't change direction just because a new administration takes over. Regardless of what you think, the stimulus did work and would have worked even better had the Democrats not caved to pressure from Republicans for bigger tax cuts and less infrastructure spending.

    All your other comments about czars and sickness is just hyperbole and lies from the Fox News crew and a bunch of crap, so I won't even respond to that noise.

    The reason the polls have turned down is because Obama has abandoned his base, which is something I have to give Bush credit for, he never did. Bush always governed to his base.

    I hope President Obama and Rahm Emanuel have learned their lesson from health care and abandon bipartisanhip and really start ramming a progressive agenda through. If you guys are going to scream so loud, we might as well give you something to really scream about.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Waaaahhh, Doug is being unfair to Hypocrats, waaaaahhh, poor Bruce, waaaaaaahhhh.

    Bruce you are so full of it. The Hypocrats version of "reform" IS a government takeover, and a big gift to their close personal friends in big pharma, insurance, and trial lawyers. Even your heros Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Howard Dean, etc. etc. are conceding that this is the biggest boondoggle ever perpetrated on the American people. And you know that Hussein will sign this as soon as he gets a chance.

    Plus he promised "NO MORE PORK" on his watch but he just signed a 1.1 TRILLION package LADEN with pork. You Hypocrats are the dirtiest bunch of thieves I have ever seen. A Conservative Teacher (http://aconservativeteacher.blogspot.com/2009/12/mi-congressman-peters-one-of-most.html) proved just how in the pocket you Hypocrats are, with GARY PETERS one of THE biggest offenders. How does that feel Bruce, knowing that you fought to get one of the dirtiest slimiest politicians EVER into office?

    The porkulus FAILED. No higher than 8% Bruce, that's what Hussein promised. Now it is rocketing past 10%, and what does this lughead do? He calls in Jenny Granmole to advise him on how to destroy more jobs.

    Hypocrats are complete IDIOTS. EPIC FAIL in EVERYTHING they do. All you are left with is to hold up three massively failing moneypits as examples of something to strive for?!?! Medicare - Epic Fail. Social Security - Epic Fail. Medicaid - Epic Fail. Bruce Failk and idiot Hypocrats - Epic Fail.

    With the SUPERMAJORITY in the HOUSE AND SENATE, and controlling the Presidency, the Hypocrats were able to devise a monstrous 2,100-page and growing bill that manages to give big insurance an extra 30-million customers, with no consumer protections. It begins raising taxes immediately but does not go into effect for another 3 years, at which point the rationing begins because there won't be enough doctors or equipment to go around. Brilliant legislating there Bruce. What are they gonna do for an encore, nuke NY?

    And WHAT are you talking about, abandoning bipartisanship? Give me ONE example where the Hypocrats have worked in a bipartisanship manner?!? This whole thing was a ram-through from beginning to end. You're living in some LA-LA land Bruce. And I thought they COULDN'T ram anything through because of the darn Republicans? You can't have it both ways Brucie. Either they can ram something through or they can't. You want to blame Hypocrat's pathetic legislating on the Republicans, but then you say they can ram through whatever they want?!?! You make no sense, which is nothing new.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Bruce Fealk said... Regardless of what you think, the stimulus did work.
    Yeah Bruce, whatever you say ...

    ReplyDelete
  7. The new buzz wortd of the day for libs is fatcats, even my mother in law was using it today,
    I had to break it to her that her messiah Obama has done nothing but surrounded himself with fatcats, she wouldnt beleive it until i played yesterdays glenn beck for her on my dvr where he showed all the names and pictures of all the fat cats in obamas circle who came from wall street and banks and investment firms and contributed heavily to his campaign and then her only answer for it was well George Bush had even more.
    And sorry bruce but if medicare and medicaid and social security were so well run they wouldnt be going bankrupt.
    This government has no business taking on other obligations when the existing programs are in dire straits, fix what we have first then we can talk about new programs.
    And if you really dont beleive the final aim of the left is a total take over of our health care you are either a liar or totally ignorant because I can show you video after video of Obama and all his minions stateing that this is the goal.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Hyperbole and lies? Really ?
    Then why have 55 congress people called on Obama to launch that freak he calls his safe school czar?
    Man that guy is twisted, have you looked him up and seen what he involved with?
    Really now bruce, tell me you find nothing objectional about this kook and that will be all I need to know about you.

    ReplyDelete
  9. You're so hell bent on criticizing the Democrats.

    Why don't you tell me JUST ONE thing positive the Republicans stand for, just one.

    They haven't put forth one workable, reasonable, realistic idea since Obama came to office.

    On all the legislation put forth, the Democratic Congress has gotten like three votes from Republican Congress people. So, tell me why in the world would anyone vote for a Republican for anything?

    ReplyDelete
  10. More straw men Bruce. Big surprise. You answer NOBODY'S questions, you answer to no criticisms. Your only response is again to blame the Republicans. Here's the thing Bruce, why should the Republicans even offer ANYTHING for a "crisis" that the Hypocrats invented?

    The Republicans offered many fantastic innovations that involved getting the government OUT of health care, solutions that would lower costs and improve quality. But the Hypocrats only want the control. It's a proven FACT Bruce. The only ones who think health care is in true CRISIS are you idiot Hypocrats who are trying to cover up your Medicare, Medicaid, and SS mistakes. Idiots. I'm proud of the Republicans and Lieberman for not voting for your Hypocrat LIEberal BS.

    Answer our questions Bruce. We know what you loser Hypocrats stand for: Tax and Spend. and spend and spend and spend and Expand (Government!). And Tax and spend and spend and spend ....

    Hypocrats = Supermajority in Legislature & Executive branches. All you idiots have done is spend and spend and spend. This BS 1.1 Trillion that Obummer just signed into law increases the size of the federal government by 10%!!! Tell me how THIS helps the little guy, or mom and pop small businesses!?! ANY increase of the government means MORE taxes from you, me, and small businesses! There's no other place to get the MONEY you IDIOT! These government postions don't increase our wealth, they take from it. You idiot. Doug, I have the answer to your question. Bruce is IGNORANT.

    ReplyDelete
  11. So Bruce, you think freeing people to buy health insurance across state lines is neither workable, reasonable or realistic? You think the same thing about tort reform, purchasing inexpensive drugs from other countries, increasing the power of HSA's, and on and on?!? These are ALL workable, reasonable AND realistic. They decrease government intervention and costs for consumers, while making health care more affordable for all. Even the first idea I mentioned is part of this Hypocrat bill! So tell me now, who is the party of NO?!? Because all these were offered up, and they cost the government less than NOTHING to implement. But the Hypocrats REFUSE to even bring it up. I guess it isn't a true HYPOCRAT-APPROVED program unless it spends 2.5 Trillion dollars that we don't have, to implement 100 new government bureaucracy programs (yeah, THAT adds to the quality of health care) and forces people to buy insurance against their will, while introducing rationing and lower quality into the picture. Wow, you Hypocrats are brilliant geniuses. THAT'S why, even if people DON'T want to vote for a Republican they sure as HELL won't vote for a Hypocrat.

    ReplyDelete
  12. John, no, because all the insurance companies will do is go to the states with the least regulation, then continue to rip off consumers. IDIOT!!!!!!!

    None of the Republican "solutions" are workable. NOT ONE. I don't like the mandate either, certainly with no competition from Medicare or a public option. That does indeed suck.

    HSA's don't help the uninsured at all.

    A few Democrats have buckled to the insurance companies, but ALL the Republicans have.

    Medicare works extremely well and people like it. Republicans even must like it because they had the chance to abolish it and NOT ONE voted for it. So prove to me that Medicare is bad.

    The fact is government health care works and it's cost effective. You may not like it on ideological grounds, but it does work for 40% of Americans.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The Democrats really messed up this Health Care Reform Bill. No one likes it and the left are the dangerous ones that will riot again if they don't get their way. Maybe the Democrats are pushing for riots that way they can enact martial law on us and inslave us for our own good. We know from the past what the liberals do when they don't get their way. They stop at nothing to get what they want.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Bruce, Obamacare gives it all up to the fat cat insurance companies and the fat cat pharma. There is no public option and it still leaves millions without insurance. The good news is it will cost us $ trillions and we have to pay for it for 4 years without getting anything for our money. The Democrats have the 60 sets needed in the Senate to pass this bill and yet they still try and pin it on the Republicans just like a 2 year old that pisses his pants and then blames his brother for it. All that does is show us how weak the Democrats are.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Bruce, you are THE idiot. You don't want to give anyone the chance to shop around for the best, most cost-effective insurance for them?!? I don't want to have to pay for your idiotic sex-change operation, but the GIVErnment wants to make everybody pay. Give me a BREAK.

    And you still think insurance companies are the problem, when they are 86th on revenue of all industries, when hospitals charge $50 for two aspirin, you think it's the insurance companies that are charging that?!?! You are DAFT.

    Medicare is the major problem here you dummie. 25% of doctors now DO NOT ACCEPT Medicare because of its LOW reimbursement rates. That is the ONLY way that the GIVErnment can figure out how to keep prices down, by paying less! And with those LOW reimbursement rates, the difference get passed on to US. So WE pay in many different ways. Plus people love Medicare because they do not pay attention to how much they pay into it, and how much they get out. It's a total PONZI scheme. If ANY company tried to run a scam like that the FEDS would put them out of business (unless they were too big to fail I guess!)

    Plus, Medicare STILL has the HIGHEST CLAIM REJECTION out of ALL the insurances. There's something you can hang your hat on BRUCETARD.

    Where is your proof that there was a chance to abolish Medicare?!? I guess I must have missed THAT one in the news! Where is your proof on that you LIAR.

    I have to reiterate my point on what a brilliant plan the Hypocrats have put together. They are ALL in the pockets of the insurance, pharma, and trial lawyers, how else could they have devised such a plan?!!? That's a point of honor that (by YOUR OWN ADMISSION) the REPUBLICANS tried to stop this huge give-away to the insurance companies!! BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHA. By all evidence available BRUCE, the HYPOCRATS are ALL in the pocket of big insurance and the Republicans are NOT, except for MAYBE Snowe.

    And then there was the Washington Post article that showed just how dirty this Gary Peters is.

    You're a REAL dumbass if you don't think HSA's will help anyone afford health insurance. Do you even know what those letters stand for BRUCE?!?

    Medicare is BROKEN. It is GOING BROKE Bruce, so it DOES NOT WORK WELL; it's obviously no model for running a business competently!! Remember when our GIVErnment took over GM and Chrysler because they were going broke, and their systems were "broken"? Same EXACT thing with Medicare and Social Security BRUCE. Wow, if that's "working" in a libertard's mind, no wonder our government is in the mess it is in. Can't wait to see what they do with GM and Chrysler. Make mine a Ford.

    You are a total idiot if you keep holding Medicare up as a system to copy!! You are a total STOOP.

    ReplyDelete
  16. John, Listen to that guy it is too damn hilarious.
    He claims we just dont have the know how or ability to open up the insurance market across state lines but these loons think they can control the weather and when you get right down to it, isnt that what all of those communists in copenhagen are trying to claim? Did you see all the communist flags and communist protesters?
    Did you see them go gaga when communist thug Chavez took the stage?
    Did you see them wet their pants and lose all control when he started his predictable bashing of Capitalism?
    The communists didnt just disappear they moved into the environmental movement and that explains their agenda of strangling our economy and trying to destroy our living standards.
    Once again anybody who continues to embrace the lies is either a communist or totally ignorant and therefore a useful idiot

    ReplyDelete
  17. More SWEEEET Jobs DESTRUCTION by Obummer and the Hypocrats:

    IPAA Chief Says Obama Hinders Oil and Gas Industry
    http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=83957

    President Barack Obama's policies on taxes, financial reform and the environment threaten to derail the oil and natural gas industry's potential to help create jobs and turn around the economy, the chairman of the Independent Petroleum Association of America (IPAA) said on Thursday.

    Speaking at the Platts Energy Podium in Washington, Bruce Vincent said the industry is dealing with a number of attacks, including concerns over the environmental effects of hydraulic fracturing in natural gas shale production, proposals in Congress to end a number of tax breaks for the sector and legislation that could increase regulation of financial hedging.

    "They tell us they understand natural gas in particular is a big part of the equation," Vincent said. "You're hearing the right things. What we're looking for is the action steps that back up the behavior. We really haven't seen that yet."

    Vincent's comments echoed statements he made last week criticizing the administration's jobs policy. In a letter to the White House, Vincent argued that the administration's tax policy and plans for financial regulation reform threaten to cost independent producers $36 billion, and cut oil production 20% and gas production 12%.

    "Derivatives play a critical role in ensuring that our member companies can minimize risk and exposure," the letter said. "Without these key financial tools in place and available to those who need them, less energy would be produced, and fewer high-wage jobs would be retained."

    Vincent said access to offshore oil and gas fields, especially in the eastern Gulf of Mexico and off Southern California, should be made a priority and not be used as a bargaining chip in the debate over climate change.

    Senators John Kerry and Lindsey Graham have said offshore drilling should be a part of any climate change bill. Their position is seen as a way to placate climate change critics.

    But Vincent said, "I don't think you trade offshore access for climate change legislation."

    IPAA represents more than 5,000 mostly small, independent oil and gas companies. The association says its members are responsible for 82% of U.S. gas production and 68% of domestic oil production.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This part is laughable. Bruce said "A few Democrats have buckled to the insurance companies, but ALL the Republicans have."

    But in actuality BRUCE, A MAJORITY OF AMERICANS DO NOT WANT THIS GOVERNMENT TAKEOVER OF THE HEALTH CARE SYSTEM. So you tell me Bruce, who has sold out to the insurance companies, the Hypocrats who are pushing this stinky-butt legislation through AGAINST THE WISHES OF THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS in order to dump huge new amounts of our money onto the insurance companies, or the guys who are fighting with the majority against this boondoggle?! It's obvious to me, has been for a long time. Remember MONTHS ago when I told you this Hypocrat plan was all just to get insurance companies more forced customers?! No Bruce, I don't have a crystal ball, I just use common sense and the evidence before me. Something you are sorely lacking.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Here's the proof. Every single Republican voted against an amendment to eliminate Medicare. Republicans in Congress like it, but they don't want it for the rest of us.
    http://thinkprogress.org/2009/07/31/weiner-medicare/

    http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x345819

    ReplyDelete
  20. Failk, did you even bother to READ that? You idiot, that eliminates benefits. It says NOTHING about eliminating having to pay into the ponzi scheme, neither does it say anything about getting a refund for all the money that you have already paid into the ponzi scheme. This thing was a farce, and what a waste of time and effort on the part of the Hypocrats. So as you can see idiot Bruce, this wasn't about eliminating Medicare, this was about eliminating the ability to draw from a program that people have, and would continue to, pay into!

    Here FAILk, since I had to put up with your BS and lies, here is a great article by Michele Malkin, hot off the press, filled with some TRUTH to clean your palette after your Lieing Turd Sandwich. It includes links to ALLL the MANY Republican Health Care Reform Ideas that the party of YES TO BIG INSURANCE, BIG PHARMA, and BIG TRIAL LAWYERS refused to acknowledge. I never want to hear from you that Republicans offered nothing. That is just another lie from you. Do you lie to your wife, children and grandchildren like this Bruce? You must be the least trust-worthy person I have ever known.

    Coburn defends the Party of No; Durbin blasts “styptic-hearted Republicans”
    http://michellemalkin.com/2009/12/18/coburn-defends-the-party-of-no-durbin-blasts-styptic-hearted-republicans/

    Coburn defends the Party of No; Durbin blasts “styptic-hearted Republicans”
    By Michelle Malkin • December 18, 2009

    On the Senate floor a few minutes ago, GOP Sen. Tom Coburn gave a rousing defense of the “Party of No.”

    “We’re accused of being the party of no,” he said. But “no is a wonderful word. When your child is misbehaving, you say no. When someone’s stealing liberty, you say no…Saying no at the right time saves lives. Saying no at the right time saves money…Saying no at the right time saves liberty.”

    Coburn went on to refute empty Democrat attacks on Republicans for not proposing health care alternatives.

    As I’ve pointed out before, there are plenty:

    Here is Sen. Judd Gregg’s Coverage, Prevention and Reform plan.

    And here is Sen. Jim Demint’s Health Care Freedom Plan: http://demint.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?Fuseaction=SponsoredBills.HealthCareFreedomAct

    And here is Sen. Bob Bennett’s Healthy Americans Act: http://bennett.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=HealthyAmericansAct

    And here is the Patients’ Choice Act of Sens. Coburn and Burr and Reps. Ryan and Nunes: http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=HealthCareReform.Home&ContentRecord_id=5e3b30a4-802a-23ad-4b44-14f0219114c6

    Sen. Dick “In the Dark” Durbin responded to Coburn with predictable Bush-bashing and by blasting “flinty-eyed, styptic-hearted Republicans.”

    With so much fiscal hemorrhaging going on in Washington, the Mother of All Styptic Pens is exactly what we need right now.

    Proud to be a member of the Party of HELL NO!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Look what else you are fighting for Bruce. You are on the wrong side. Unless you WANT to be on the side that screws over our senior citizens. If that is the case, then you must be on the right side:

    Behind the Curtain: Why AARP Supports ObamaCare
    by Stage Right
    http://biggovernment.com/2009/12/18/behind-the-curtain-why-aarp-supports-obamacare/

    When the AARP began its full-throated support for the President’s Health Care Scheme many wondered why this venerable organization would support a plan which would cut hundreds of billions of dollars from Medicare, mostly by putting strict price controls on the very popular Medicare Advantage program.

    By putting enormous price controls (cuts) in the Medicare Advantage program, many seniors will be forced to look to the other Medicare supplemental offer, MediGap. It just so happens that AARP sells MediGap coverage to its members. The income generated from those sales accounts for 60.3% of AARP’s revenues, ten years ago, this income only accounted for 10% of their budget.

    So, in short, the Obama Health Care Scheme puts hundreds of millions of dollars in AARP’s coffers by forcing seniors off of Medicare Advantage and into MediGap programs. You would think that this was enough of a payback to the AARP for their support. But Big Government now reveals another little prize that has been awarded to AARP in time for their recent official endorsement of the Senate Bill.
    The AARP Foundation will have received over $100, 000, 000 dollars in Federal grants by the end of this fiscal year. Last fiscal year they received less than $80,000,000. That is a hell of an increase in this economy. But would AARP sell out their membership for a mere $20,000,000 increase in Federal Grants? It’s not quite as simple as that. The bigger question is: “Why does AARP continue to back a Health Care Scheme which seems to work directly against the interests of their members?”

    The answer is: At this point, the AARP doesn’t NEED to care about their members. Frankly, they don’t NEED their members at all.

    Let’s look at the numbers:
    The AARP annual membership fee is $16.00.
    In 2007 AARP earned about $500 million in MediGap royalties
    In 2008 it earned $652 million in MediGap royalties
    The 2009 numbers have not yet been released, but given the trends, it’s looking pretty good for AARP.

    Add to that the $100 million in federal grants (that’s your money they are getting for free)
    When you look at those numbers and you realize that those MediGap royalties will go through the roof when MediCare Advantage is clamped down by the new system and you can see that all of that income just can’t compare with AARP’s membership’s measly $16 per geezer.
    With this in mind, so much about the AARP’s recent activities makes sense. This is why they jumped so hard on board with Obama’s scheme. This is why they worked so hard against President Bush’s Social Security reforms (there’s no money in a Republican plan that REDUCES the role of government).
    This is why they ask “How High?” whenever the administration tells them to jump. Look at their uncharacteristic and peculiar support for the Entertainment Industry Foundation’s participation in President Obama’s “Call to service” on network television programming this Fall as exposed on the pages of Big Hollywood. AARP went so far as to set up its own search engine chock full of volunteer opportunities including phone banks at Planned Parenthood (just what grandma wants their $16.00 to pay for, right?)

    It seems that with MediGap income rapidly reaching a billion dollars and with hundreds of millions of dollars in grants, the real constituency for AARP is not the vulnerable seniors they claim to service, but the Big Government fat cats who push cash their way and force through regulations that put their competitors out of business. Kind of makes that 20% discount at Hometown Buffet really worth while, doesn’t it?

    ReplyDelete
  22. John, if you want to be part of the Party of Hell No, great. No solutions. No ideas.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I listed the solutions for you Bruce. You just demonstrated what a little whiny child you are when you refuse to even read them. You really are a little bitch. And you reveal it every time. Answer our questions we put to you BRUCE. Bruce FAILk. What a loser.

    ReplyDelete
  24. It's quite telling when I answer your lies with truth Bruce, and you have no answers to our FACTS. Your positions are all quite silly and everything you have said has been proven to be a lie. You are living in a fantasy world of unicorns and rainbows and lollipops. You and Michael Jackson are little children forever. Maybe we can re-name Rochester Hills "Neverland".

    ReplyDelete
  25. Look at DopeyChange Obummer in Copenhagen WITHOUT his teleprompter. THIS guy is more intelligent than Bush!? I think not.

    My neck muscles hurt just watching the bobblehead-in-chief:

    http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2009/12/bammy-in-dopenh.html

    ReplyDelete
  26. I'd like to alert everyone to what kind of jerk Bruce Failk is. Here is a comment he made on Chris' blog: (http://bonsaifromtheright.blogspot.com/2009/12/three-questions-for-health-care-reform.html#comments)

    Bruce said @ 16 DECEMBER, 2009 16:17

    I just had a conversation with a Republican who hasn't had health care for 12 years and their blood pressure is through the roof, but they can't afford to go to the doctor. What's going to happen when she has a stroke from her high blood pressure. You and I are going to end up paying for her health care, but instead of helping to pay for a few doctor visits, we're going to pay tens of thousands of dollars for emergency room care and chronic care as a result of a stroke that was perfectly preventable.

    Now, if somebody told me that they couldn't afford to go to the doctor, my first thought would be "How can I help?" Can I tell this woman about inexpensive clinics that she can go to? About the Oakland County program that offers inexpensive check-ups and prescription drugs? Can I GIVE this woman money so she doesn't suffer or have the risk of stroke, so she can go see the doctor? Can I mention that maybe some exercise and fewer Twinkies might be in the offing to control her blood pressure? One of my first thoughts actually was that just being around Bruce is the real threat to having a high-blood-pressure induced stroke.

    So those would be my first thoughts. What is Bruce's first thought!?! Well I'll just see what I can get my government to do for you. You aren't going to be MY problem, I'll see what nonsense legislation my Hypocrats and lieberals can push through. Lady, you won't be seeing the benefits for three more years but your taxes will start going up tomorrow. Don't worry, you can thank me later when the rationing starts, when you can't get in to see your general practitioner for 6 months.

    That's mighty selfish and self-serving Bruce. Did you get her address so you could take up a collection for her? I'll kick in twice as much as you did, but I'll have to not only double it but add some in, since 2 x 0 = 0. Just like the rape-victim that you listed the donation page quite prominently, but didn't care enough to bring YOURSELF to donate. What a ZERO you are Bruce. Always willing to go the extra mile with someone else's hard-earned money.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Election 2010: Michigan Governor
    2010 Michigan Governor: Cherry Trails Three GOP Hopefuls
    Friday, December 18, 2009
    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/elections2/election_2010/election_2010_governor_elections/michigan/election_2010_michigan_governor

    Michigan has been reliably Democratic in recent years, but right now Lieutenant Governor John Cherry faces an uphill battle against his leading Republican opponents in the state’s 2010 race for governor.

    A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of likely Michigan voters finds Cherry, the top Democrat in the race, trailing two of his potential GOP rivals by double digits and a third by five points.

    Congressman Peter Hoekstra is the strongest Republican hopeful at this juncture, beating Cherry by 14 points – 46% to 32%. Six percent (6%) prefer another candidate, and 16% are undecided.

    In a match-up with Oakland County Sheriff Mike Bouchard, Cherry is the loser 42% to 32%. Again, six percent (6%) like someone else in the race. Undecideds rise to 20%.

    The race is slightly closer when the lieutenant governor is pitted against state Attorney General Mike Cox. In that match-up, Cox wins 39% to 34%. Nine percent (9%) favor some other candidate, and 17% are not sure whom they’ll vote for.

    In a survey in October, Michigan voters gave Republicans an even chance of regaining the governor’s mansion next year: 37% said they would vote for an unspecified Republican candidate for governor versus 36% who favored an unnamed Democrat. Twenty-seven percent (27%) were undecided.

    All three GOP hopefuls beat Cherry handily among male voters and voters not affiliated with either major political party. The contest is more competitive among women voters.

    ReplyDelete
  28. John, a good majority 56% still favor the public option or Medicare buy-in. What people, including me, are against, is a mandate to buy insurance from a private company, with no public option or Medicare buy-in.

    Even with all the conservative tea parties, calling President Obama and the Democrats every name under the sun etc. you still have not defeated the public option in the public's opinion.

    The progressive Democrats have to grow a pair and stick with their base that still want real health care reform.

    ReplyDelete
  29. John, It's impossible to debate with someone as demented as Bruce. He was the worst possible choice Glenn Gilbert could have made for a blogger "From the Left" !

    ReplyDelete
  30. Brian, i do think that the people voted for a much more accountable leadership and yet i don't think Obama has gone far enough to accomplish that. I think that over the next few years they will grow and things will get better.

    As for John McCain, i once voted for him for the nomination but that was 8 years and one South Carolina push/pull about out of wedlock racial babies ago? The fact was that john McCain stopped being the so-called "maverick" and started being the Bush slappy the last three years of W's term. He became Bush lite and his presidential campaign suffered for it.

    Clearly the time for John was 2000 when he was vibrant, self-assured and confident, not the last election when he was a pale imitation of his old self and often seemed awkward, out of place and out of touch. I felt bad for him because he was clearly the better candidate in 2000 and now he looked like my grumpy gramps yelling at the young kids. Its too bad that non-religious semi-moderate candidates like him and Tommy Thompson of Wisconsin never excited the base of the republican party because their time is gone and the party lost some of its most intellectual leaders. Its possible with the Sarah Palin effect, that could happen to Bobby Jindal or Tim Pawlenty too. While i don't like their politics i respect their work and thought, unlike Mrs. Palin who i find little to like about. Undereducated, over-exposed, limited in her intellect and lacking in earnest study of government she is everything the party and the country doesn't need.

    But i digress as that's a topic for a future blog. I do have to hand it to you now that i have started and sputtered out of the gate with my own blog, you have managed to present a decent discourse and follow up.

    As i didn't read the follow ups but skimmed i can't argue any of them, but i think i prefer Bouchard to Cox, mostly because of Mike's hypocrisy and adultery. I also don't know that i find him trust worthy with the Manogian mansion thing. Sorry but i trust the troopers over the AG. Just how i feel.

    Personally i think Mike Rogers should run, but i think he has his sights on Stabemnow's seat.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Brian, I feel the same way about you being the righty blogger. You were the worst possible choice.

    Once you started recruited the tea baggers, your blog went to hell and got as nasty and mean as could possibly be.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Bruce, the only thing makes your comments bearable is that I know that as soon as you post one, John or Chris (or Holly or PGP) or someone ... will rip you up one side and down the other and expose the idiocy of your position !

    So knock yourself out ! (God I miss vomamike)

    ReplyDelete
  33. Hey Bruce, you mean recruit like this (by the way, only one "t" in "Lefty":

    http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bfealk
    Commenters needed on The Oakland Press Leftty Blog
    Posted by bfealk in Michigan
    Fri Sep 18th 2009, 09:10 AM
    I have a blog on the Oakland Press. What I need right now are commenters. The blog is located at
    From the Left

    The righties have got quite a few commenters, so I can really use your help. If you have any questions, please e-mail me at bfealk@wideopenwest.com

    BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHA ... poor Bruce, poor sad, pathetic Bruce. Hey Bruce, I sure would like to see your proof of where Brian "recruited"! ROFLMAO ... and you KNOW Bruce that this is not the only instance where you tried to get help! Pathetic!! BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHA

    Oh and Brucie, or should I call you George, or should I call you granny fealk? Where the hell are you getting your BS numbers from now?!? Round these parts we all provide links unless it some made-up BS, so I won't be looking for any links from you I guess. Well here is a link to MY polls, and they paint quite a different picture:

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/october_2009/fear_of_losing_private_health_insurance_trumps_public_option

    Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters nationwide say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage is a higher priority than giving consumers the choice of a "public option" health insurance company.

    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 29% take the opposite view. They say it’s more important to give people a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option.

    Most liberal voters say giving people the choice of a public option is more important. But most moderates put guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance first, and conservatives overwhelmingly agree with them.
    Currently, 53% of insured voters say it’s likely they would have to change their health insurance coverage if the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats becomes law. That helps explain why 54% of voters believe that the health care system needs major changes, but just 41% support the comprehensive reform proposed by the president.

    AND THIS (Before the pubic option/Medicare buy-in was even taken out): http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/november_2009/support_for_health_care_plan_falls_to_new_low

    Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.
    The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.
    Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.
    Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.
    Intensity remains stronger among those who oppose the push to change the nation’s health care system: 21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Hey, Joey is back? Where have you been Joey?

    Definitely everyone check out Joey's blog. The last time I was there he had two original well-written blog topics. The site is: angryunionist.blogspot.com. Still not sure why you are angry though Joey.

    Anyway, nice to have you back from wherever you were. Just when we think that the only liberal out there are the ones like Bruce who just spout and regurgitate their Hypocrat dialog like they are Chatty Cathy dolls, you show up for a refreshing bit of insight, and actually provide a THOUGHTFUL comment! I know this might sound sarcastic but I swear it isn't. I predict that you will have a LOT more readers with your thoughtful blog than Bruce could ever dream of with his hate-filled diatribe of a radical lefty blog. Just a prediction.

    ReplyDelete
  35. John, That's good advice. Bruce's blog was nothing but attacks on everything conservative. He never wrote anything positive or constructive and it was always VERY biased. Bruce's insistence on writing hateful, inflamatory blogs attacking conservatives eventually got the "plug pulled" on both of our blogs.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Actually, Brian, it was your comment about Jamie Leigh Jones, you know, the woman you accused of being a whore, that caused the problem.

    You don't notice, that all you do is attack liberals, the President and anyone that disagrees with you.

    You are a reflection of the idiotic, racist teabaggers that are going to take down the conservative movement in America.

    Do you have one of those hats with the tea bags hanging from it? I bet you look great in it.

    ReplyDelete
  37. John, took a break from the net. Nothing serious just couldn't get myself fired up to post.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Actually Bruce, my only mistake was falling for the bait and commenting on your ridiculous blog. You didn't "blog" you "baited". You posted inflamatory, taunting posts and tried to lure a conservative in and react to your taunting.

    It's your M.O. Bruce, just like what you do at protests ... you taunt people and try to get them to lash out at you and video tape it so you can try to meke "them" look bad after you've created the situation.

    I'm just disappointed with myself that I fell for your childish tactics. I guess it is better though since you no longer have a voice in paper ... your plan backfired this time.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Probably one of the best articles I've read in regard to the Health Care debate and employes logic that is irrefutable. From Andrew Napolitano:

    "In the continually harsh public discourse over the President’s proposals for federally-managed healthcare, the Big Government progressives in both the Democratic and the Republican parties have been trying to trick us. These folks, who really want the government to care for us from cradle to grave, have been promoting the idea that health care is a right. In promoting that false premise, they have succeeded in moving the debate from WHETHER the feds should micro-manage health care to HOW the feds should micro-manage health care. This is a false premise, and we should reject it. Health care is not a right; it is a good, like food, like shelter, and like clothing.

    What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity. Thinkers from St. Thomas Aquinas, to Thomas Jefferson, to the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., to Pope John Paul II have all argued that our rights are a natural part of our humanity. We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies. So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish, to say what we think, to publish what we say, our right to worship or not worship, our right to travel, to defend ourselves, to use our own property as we see fit, our right to due process – fairness – from the government, and our right to be left alone, are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with. The government doesn’t give them to us and the government doesn’t pay for them and the government can’t take them away, unless a jury finds that we have violated someone else’s rights.

    What is a good? A good is something we want or need. In a sense, it is the opposite of a right. We have our rights from birth, but we need our parents when we are children and we need ourselves as adults to purchase the goods we require for existence. So, food is a good, shelter is a good, clothing is a good, education is a good, a car is a good, legal representation is a good, working out at a gym is a good, and access to health care is a good. Does the government give us goods? Well, sometimes it takes money from some of us and gives that money to others. You can call that taxation or you can call it theft; but you cannot call it a right.

    A right stems from our humanity. A good is something you buy or someone else buys for you.

    Now, when you look at health care for what it is, when you look at the US Constitution, when you look at the history of human freedom, when you accept the American value of the primacy of the individual over the fleeting wishes of the government, it becomes apparent that those who claim that healthcare is a right simply want to extend a form of government welfare.

    When I make this argument to my Big Government friends, they come back at me with…well, if people don’t have health insurance, they will just go to hospitals and we will end up paying for them anyway. Why should that be? We don’t let people steal food from a supermarket or an apartment from a landlord or clothing from a local shop. Why do we let them take healthcare from a hospital without paying for it? Well, my Big Government friends contend, that’s charity.

    They are wrong again. It is impossible to be charitable with someone else’s money. Charity comes from your own heart, not from the government spending your money. When we pay our taxes to the government and it gives that money away, that’s not charity, that’s welfare. When the government takes more from us than it needs to secure our freedoms, so it can have money to give away, that’s not charity, that’s theft. And when the government forces hospitals to provide free health care to those who can’t or won’t care for themselves, that’s not charity, that’s slavery. That’s why we now have constitutional chaos, because the government steals and enslaves, and we outlawed that a long time ago."

    ReplyDelete
  40. Paul, do you think prisoners should have a right to health care, but not the rest of the citizens of the country?


    IS HEALTH CARE A RIGHT OR A PRIVILEGE?

    Is health care a right or a privilege? - Health Policy
    Physician Executive, Jan-Feb, 2003 by Howard Haft

    "THE RIGHT TO BASIC HEALTH CARE IS AFFORDED TO EVERY CITIZEN OF TILE UNITED STATES."

    Amendment (XXVIII) (2003)

    Constitution of the United States of America

    Of course there is no 28th Amendment to the Constitution. As a matter of fact, health care is not a right afforded to every citizen in our country.

    Health care is a privilege attainable by the wealthy, a benefit provided solely at the discretion of an employer, a government subsidized insurance plan for the elderly or a charitable gift provided based on the goodwill of others.

    The Founding Fathers declared that we are "endowed with unalienable rights, among them are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." (1) There is no question that in order to have life we must have health. Yet there has been only limited constitutional language specific to this right.

    The "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the 8th Amendment to the Constitution has been interpreted by the Supreme Court to require prisoners, as part of their humane treatment during detention, to be guaranteed the right to health care. (2)

    Currently prisoners are the only group who are specifically granted the right to health care. It is probable that the founders of our country, if they could have predicted the importance of health care, would have granted that the same standard of humane treatment be extended to every citizen.

    The rest of the article can be found here.
    http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0843/is_1_29/ai_96500897/

    ReplyDelete
  41. Brilliant post Paul; that Judge Napolitano is spot-on.

    Hey Brian, get a load of Piñata-head trying to make fun of somebody with teabags on their hat! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA ... oh my lord, what a great laugh to start the day with!! Piñata-head and pee-stain and helmet-head and the guy who couldn't even spell "GLENN" correctly on his sign, remember those guys from the Glenn Beck protest?!?! ROFLMAO

    Remember when that guy got Piñata-head Bruce on video and was asking him questions and Piñata-head FAILk started to run away!??! LOL

    Good old memories!

    ReplyDelete
  42. Obviously Bruce didn't read your comment Paul. In fact, I'm beginning to wonder if he can read at all. He certainly can't comprehend. Bruce, as Paul's comment states, food, clothing and shelter is ALSO necessary for "life". So are you saying that our government should TAKE by force the fruits our our labors to GIVE food, clothing and shelter to everyone? Answer the question BRUCE. Gosh, why do we even lock up prisoners, they apparently have the right to their life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, right?!?! Wow Bruce, you are dumber than a box of hair.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Sorry Bruce, I don't engage in debates with individuals that lack the intellectual fortitude to discuss a subject reasonably. I've read enough of your inane, illogical posts and it's apparent you are incapable of understanding basic concepts and ideas. I'll leave it to the others on this thread to point out your lack of principles and your moral & intellectual shortcomings.

    P.S. As I've already stated, the posted article is irrefutable and you've said nothing to disprove it.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Paul, don't mind Bruce. He's just an idiot who wants to model our health care system after the Detroit Police Department or the Detroit Public Schools. Another crank Hypocrat lieberal.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Hey Bruce, which one of these are you?

    Health care is a privilege attainable by the wealthy, a benefit provided solely at the discretion of an employer, a government subsidized insurance plan for the elderly or a charitable gift provided based on the goodwill of others.

    I have health INSURANCE, but I know I ain't wealthy, and I don't have it at the discretion of my employer as I can buy many affordable options on-line (but not nearly as affordable if I could buy it across state lines at competitive rates like Progressive Car Insurance), and I'm not elderly, and I sure don't get it as a charitable gift. What about you rich man?!

    ReplyDelete
  46. Bruce you are as out of touch with what Americans want as Obama and most of the Democrats in both houses of Congress. Just look at how few left wing comments you see on the blogs. Don't let Bruce fool you he is pissed at Obama and Congress for not doing what he wants. It must really suck to have been one of the loud mouth libs that said Obama and the Democrats will save us all and it looks like they are bigger mutts then the Republicans. Thank God the Republicans are finding their way and not voting for these stupid bills that don't make a dorp of sense at this time.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Bruce is health care given by the government taken from the people a God given right?

    ReplyDelete
  48. John, you are an IDIOT!

    I have health INSURANCE, but I know I ain't wealthy, and I don't have it at the discretion of my employer as I can buy many affordable options on-line (but not nearly as affordable if I could buy it across state lines at competitive rates like Progressive Car Insurance), and I'm not elderly, and I sure don't get it as a charitable gift. What about you rich man?!

    Wait till you have a condition, through no fault of your own, say high blood pressure or your cholesterol get a little too high, then see if you can buy insurance in the private market and get back to me.

    As far as across state lines, that's another pile of crap idea the conservatives have been heaping on the American people.

    The only thing insurance companies will do if they can sell across state lines is set up shop in the states that have the least regulation and start raping the American people even worse than they already are.

    When will you recognize the insurance companies for the money grubbing, evil bastards that will sell their grandmother for a profit?

    They have shareholders that they accountable to and the only thing that those shareholders want is a bigger profit every quarter. And if they have to deny claims, rescind coverage, raise premiums by 20-30% to make their company's balance sheet look better, they will do any and all of those things to make it happen.

    We are at the mercy of the insurance company executives who are earning millions and millions of dollars by screwing sick Americans.

    Here's hoping that you develop high blood pressure, diabetes, high cholesterol while you are in the private market and then you try to buy insurance and get reject by every company out there and you have to figure out how to pay for any health emergency with NO INSURANCE, or you thought you had insurance until the insurance company finds out you had something you didn't put down on your application and rescinds your coverage after a visit to the hospital.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Bruce you are as out of touch with America as Obama and moswt Democrats in Congress.Life suck sometimes Bruce but for some reason every sceam the Democrats come up with to fix the problem they only make it worse not better. I can't wait till you guys try and feed us all like the USSR tryed to do. Remember all the empty shelves in Russia? That is a little spread the wealth for you.

    ReplyDelete
  50. paul, you said What???

    that article is irrefutable???

    lol...all it is unfortunately for you is opinion. Nothing more.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Well JoeC, the other commentator on this site, whose intellect runs about equal to Bruce's. Maybe you would like to enlighten us all with your logical, fact-based rebuttal to the article. We'll be waiting. Good luck!

    ReplyDelete
  52. Paul, at least i hold up op-eds as near laws of physics and shit. If i have some time tomorrow i'll tear his work a new one.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Paul, obviously you missed the point. I am offering criticism of your statement not his opinion piece. You suggest that his piece is irrefutable which is defined as

    Impossible to refute or disprove; incontrovertible

    The reality is that everything published as a opinion piece is subject to criticism and nothing is incontrovertible, this piece included. That is the reality of philosophical works that they are not laws of Math and physics, but the thoughts and judgments of learned men that can be controvertible.

    I have read plenty of works criticising far more learned men than the judge.

    But for your sake i will blog about this and offer up my criticism of this op-ed on my blog as i think its important enough to warrant criticism.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Bruce, once again you have exposed YOURSELF as the idiot.

    Bruce, do you have health insurance? I'm sure you do, and I'm quite curious to know why you would keep spending money on such a scam? If at any moment the insurance company can reject you and throw you out on your ass, then why would you have health insurance?!?! Either you are the BIGGEST idiot, or you are SO FULL OF SHIT. Right now it's not a law that you have health insurance. So why would YOU have it?

    95% of people are happy with the coverage they have. Medicare is the biggest claim rejector of them all. If I have a problem with the coverage I buy and pay for, I have legal recourse right now. Think you will have much legal recourse when the government is running things? You betcha you won't. I would rather fight an insurance company than the dirty Hypocrat federal government. Idiot Bruce.

    By the way, the "across state lines" thing was ADDED to the Hypocrat bill. So you might want to tell those sell-out, bought and paid for by the big insurance companies, Hypocrats just what a bad idea it is. You are so smart Bruce, gosh, you keep revealing what an idiotic plan this Hypocrat LIEberal is.

    And now those insurance companies are going to reap billions, thanks to the government forcing me to buy something I do not want. If I want to save $1.7 million during my lifetime (the average that a person will spend on health insurance) and put that into an HSA, and pay for my own medical care, I don't have that option. Sounds to me like the feds are the biggest THUGS around. Well, they Hypocrat feds at least.

    You stay classy Bruce, wishing the worst on me. It's stunning how you say you care about people but you have the ugliest soul I have ever seen. You are sick and disgusting. You must be the pride of your family.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Paul, nice comment spelling out the difference between "goods" that we want and God-given "rights" that we have. Some of these bleeding heart lib's (like Bruce and the rest of the move-on.org crowd) try to convince people that is government's job to provide health care. IT IS NOT.

    ReplyDelete
  56. John, I happen to agree with you about some of your comments about the Senate bill. However, several Democrats are fighting to correct the things that are wrong with it before it becomes law.

    I hope they're successful and that the issues you raise and I have similar concerns about are corrected in conference between the House and Senate bills. The House bill is a much better bill and I hope they get closer to the House bill than the Senate version when all is said and done.

    Meanwhile, the Republicans still HAVE NO SOLUTIONS. THEY ONLY OBSTRUCT. NO IDEAS. NO SOLUTIONS. NO CONSCIENCE. NO MORALS.

    ReplyDelete
  57. If you guys get a chance, go to JoeC's blog and read his sad attempt to refute the article I posted. It's hard to imagine him spending that much time and taking up so much space without saying anything.

    Here's the definition of the word refute:

    "to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous"

    Let's look at how he dealt with the truths mentioned in the article.

    "What is a right? A right is a gift from God that extends from our humanity." Even if someone doesn't believe in God, their rights still exist simply because they do. JoeC says nothing to refute this.

    "We own our bodies, thus we own the gifts that emanate from our bodies." Nothing said

    "So, our right to life, our right to develop our personalities, our right to think as we wish,... are all rights that stem from our humanity. These are natural rights that we are born with." No rebuttal.

    "What is a good? A good is something we want or need." No comment.

    "So, food is a good, shelter is a good, clothing is a good, education is a good, a car is a good, legal representation is a good, working out at a gym is a good, and access to health care is a good." I'll pass on this one.

    "A right stems from our humanity. A good is something you buy or someone else buys for you." I'll get back to you on this one.

    "We don’t let people steal food from a supermarket or an apartment from a landlord or clothing from a local shop. Why do we let them take healthcare from a hospital without paying for it?" Come on, who steals from the supermarket or clothing store? Now your just being silly.

    "It is impossible to be charitable with someone else’s money. Charity comes from your own heart, not from the government spending your money." Well, technically that's true, but I'm not ready to concede that point yet.

    "When we pay our taxes to the government and it gives that money away, that’s not charity, that’s welfare." Yeah, you may call it that, but I think it's just being nice to people.

    "And when the government forces hospitals to provide free health care to those who can’t or won’t care for themselves, that’s not charity, that’s slavery." Shhh, that's such a harsh word, I'd prefer you not use it.

    In a nutshell, as I stated earlier, JoeC has gone to great lengths to refute the piece and appears to have invoked a Fallacious Argument known as "Argument by Gibberish". Read his comments and see if you don't agree.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Paul didn't think so???....well you shoulda...its done.

    ReplyDelete
  59. It doesn't matter what the Republicans have or don't have Bruce. The FACT is that the Hypocrat plan makes EVERYTHING WORSE. Worse than doing nothing!! BWAAAAAAHAHAHAHA, only the Hypocrats could manage THAT fine legislating!

    And Bruce, the House is going to have to be hewing very close to the Senate bill if it has a chance of passing, i.e. "ping-ponging" it back to the Senate. So good luck with more of your idiotic "HOPE". You Hypocrats have sunk any chance of REAL reform in favor of sending big bucks to your buddies the Big Insurance, Big Pharma and Trial Lawyers. Yeah, stealing from me, from kids who neither want nor need health INSURANCE, yeah Bruce, that's some morals there! The last person I need telling ME what's moral is a Pro-death, racist, greedy LIEberal Hypocrat.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Funny how you NEVER answer my questions BRUCE. What is your problem, are you literally retarded? Do you not know how to discuss, to debate? I read all these comments, and NOBODY else has problems answering questions. Only YOU do Bruce. What is your problem? Whoops, there are three more questions you will never answer.

    ReplyDelete
  61. It was a thoughtful criticism, Paul. I clearly and succintly argued against it. You however choose to ignore the points raised and go on with your ideaologue self. So have at it.

    hey if you want to argue it though, why not post your criticism at the blog site, instead of here. Chris, and john both read it and will undoubtedly back you up.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Paul you are right. How funny was that attempt? John they can't answer your questions. In fact they try to forget those questions all together because those questions distroy their liberal house of cards.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Paul, I thought all money was god's money. I'm wondering, if you're a good Christian, do you tithe 10%? I bet you don't. The average tithe is only 2% nationwide, so it looks like Christians don't do very well in that department overall. I'm guess you fall into that category, Paul.

    Since when, by Christine theory, is it YOUR money in the first place.

    I gave up answering any questions, John, because no matter how I answer, it doesn't satisfy you. I use links, you don't like my links. I offer opinion, you never agree with my opinion. What's the use answering your questions?

    ReplyDelete
  64. Looks like I have a typo in my last comment.

    (CORRECTION)
    Since when, by Christian theory, is it YOUR money in the first place?

    ReplyDelete
  65. Conservatives More Liberal Givers
    Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).
    Do Liberals Hate Charity?
    ...the difference can be explained in one word, and it's not "compassion." It's "religion." A recent survey from Google similarly found that self-identified conservatives gave more to charity than did self-identified liberals. But they also found that "if donations to all religious organizations are excluded, liberals give slightly more to charity than conservatives do."
    Bleeding Heart Tightwads
    Liberals show tremendous compassion in pushing for generous government spending to help the neediest people at home and abroad. Yet when it comes to individual contributions to charitable causes, liberals are cheapskates.
    'Tis the Season for Conservatives
    Contrary to the liberal "bleeding heart" label, Mr. Brooks also claims conservatives volunteer more time and donate more blood.
    So it seems there are two main camps here:

    Liberals who spend other people's money for their causes (environmental, feeding the hungry, etc.). They make sure it's a big hoop-la and make sure it's well covered by the press. It's all about appearance and what other people think of them.
    Conservatives who give their own, personal money and make their donations more privately. If they give to churches, that's great and shouldn't be counted against them. Churches have social programs (they feed the hungry, too) and are a place for spiritual growth.
    Interesting. Liberals talk about being compassionate, but where's the proof? I'm not saying all Liberals don't donate to charity - not at all. There are Liberals that give to good charities. But with all the talk, where's the walk? With all the noise they make about it, you'd think they'd way outnumber what Conservatives give. It turns out that they not leading, but lacking in donations to charity.

    And then there are all these Government bailouts, too. That again is just Liberals giving away other people's money. So this charity statistic seems to follow right along with the bailouts, too. They just look good doing it when all along, the American people know the truth and hate the bailouts.


    Here's a thought... what gets me is that Jesus told us not to give money to charities that feed the poor, but that we should feed the poor. There's something about doing it yourself rather than paying someone else to do it. When you take your own time to feed the poor or help people, you get something out of it, too, which helps you. I'm a follower of Jesus, so I take what Jesus said seriously but even if you're reading this and don't follow Jesus, you have to agree that this point just makes sense. When you do the work, you also get something out of it.

    I don't think that giving to a political candidate is considered charity. If it was, then maybe the Liberals donating to Obama would have beaten the donations by Conservatives. Wait, that's not fair... we Conservatives didn't have a Conservative Presidential candidate this time. You can bet next time, we will.

    Many charities now take online donations, so it's not too late. Most even take donations up until 11:59pm on New Years Eve because for your donation to count this year, you need a dated receipt. There's no doubt they're hurting this year. I have cut back a little this year on extra donating that do. I've kept donating to the charities that I've made commitments to though. I do think it's important to give to charities right from when you start working and not once you get enough money. If that's the attitude, then it'll probably never happen, right?

    ReplyDelete
  66. Joey, that was a pretty lengthy, yet ultimately empty rebuttal. I was really expecting something more from you than to do things like try to inject race in it by simply questioning the use of MLK Jr. in the discussion.

    I don't really see any place where you ultimately proved that health care is a right, any more than food, clothing or shelter. Does anyone really believe that food, clothing and shelter is a right, to be provided by the government?!

    As for gun ownership, we have the right to keep and bear arms, but not a right for the government to provide guns to us. This little bit just stood out, maybe I misread it, but I thought I would clarify that for you.

    Is there any chance you could just stick with the piece and provide a good rebuttal? It was well-written though. Again, much more refreshing that this typical Bruce response in which he refuses to answer questions. To me, people like Bruce are complete idiots and expose the weakness of their arguments when they refuse to answer simple questions. I mean, really, have you ever known anyone to refuse to answer whether they have health insurance? Especially when they say what a scam health insurance is in one breath, and yet with the next breath they are championing a plan in which the government FORCES us against our wills to buy that very same health insurance!!

    ReplyDelete
  67. So FAILk, you said you believe in God, do YOU give 10%? And you are saying that if people do NOT give 10%, then ... what?! What is your point BRUCE!? Are you saying that the fruits of one's labor is the GOVERNMENT'S to do with as they please?!?! WTF, you are a communist Bruce! I mean, really, what else do you call it?! Joey, I'm sure you can help me out here with a definition. I'm too exhausted from dealing with this moronic, idiotic, lieberal Hypocrat to bother. Bruce, at what point does someone make too much money? At what level, in your OPINION, should the government step in and confiscate their wages? Say, just by example, if a person makes $200,000 per year, should the government take 1/2 of that, so that they make $100,000 per year? Likewise, if they make $1,000,000/year, should the government even that out and spread that wealth around, so maybe take $900,000 and leave them with $100,000, so that everyone is equal?!

    You are a total fruitcake Bruce, and I don't expect an answer because as always you don't think in the "REAL" world like the rest of us.

    Bruce, how much did you give that poor lady that had high blood pressure? What did you do to help her out, or ease her stress with a gift of your time or money? That's what I thought Bruce. You would rather cross the street to avoid walking past her than bother to give her a nickel for her troubles. It's always easier to say "Oh, the government should DO something about THIS", then it is to actually open your heart and help out those less fortunate.

    You are the penultimate JERK Bruce FAILk.

    ReplyDelete
  68. John, I do have health insurance.

    If you are so against health insurance companies, it seems like you'd be in favor of a single-payer system or a total self insurance and footing the bill entirely yourself, without any tax credit, if you were to get sick, you'd just write a check, right?

    ReplyDelete
  69. John, I guess in the end I didn't decide to refute the piece as much as do a criticism of his theory and the supporting logic.

    My main points still stand though.

    He uses the names of Christians to establish a connection to the rights he finds important and God. He avoids any and all secular philosophers. And does one have to have a creator to have these natural rights?

    Then his feelings on what are rights and how are they granted is controvertible. The framers of our constitution, including James Madison clearly establish both rights of natural law and rights of social contract, often termed social rights.

    1. Defense of ones property- Social right
    2. Trial by jury- Social right

    By those tokens the thought that these right all come from our humanity is not irrefutable but clearly contested.

    I mean we could discuss this more thoroughly another time after you've read Rousseau, and Burke. Till now understand that other philosophers and even some of our founders have refuted his thinking.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Chris, as to your post, the answer is Dom Helder.

    "when i feed the poor they call me a saint. when i ask why there is poor they call me a communist."

    Those that live in a partisan world that acknowldeges only natural rights and not social rights, should bear the brunt of the world they create.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Bruce said: "If you are so against health insurance companies, it seems like you'd be in favor of a single-payer system or a total self insurance and footing the bill entirely yourself, without any tax credit, if you were to get sick, you'd just write a check, right?"

    Bruce, I don't know WTF you are talking about. It's hilarious how you are trying to turn this around though! YOU are the one against health insurance. I don't know where you ever got the idea that I was against them, since I am always defending them against your nonsensical attacks.

    My point, quite obviously, is if as you state health insurance is such a scam, and they will drop you in a hot second if you have high blood pressure or whatever BS claims you make, then WHY do you have it?! Either you are a complete idiot for acknowledging what a scam health insurance is and STILL buying it, or you are totally full of shit. So which is it Bruce? You own health insurance, so WHY?!

    Insurance is necessary for large, so-called "catastrophic" claims. This use of health insurance nowadays is akin to buying groceries at the grocery store, with no prices shown to comparison shop with, and putting it on your house insurance and paying only a $20 copay. Do you think that if everyone used their house insurance in this manner, groceries would be cheap?! You are a total knucklehead Bruce.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Joey, this nation was founded on Christian ideology. We are all endowed with a creator, and we have those rights given by him.

    I noticed in your "critique" (not rebuttal) that you complained because he only mentioned the men who back up his philosophy, and didn't make note of any specific quotes. And yet you do the very same thing.

    And yes Joey, I'm sure there are many different thinkers who have MANY different philosophies. I didn't realize that was what you were trying to prove! I mean, seriously, you want to get into a throw-down philosophy discussion? I thought you were trying to offer a rebuttal, or disprove his points. Are you saying, again Joey, that health care, food, clothing and shelter are also rights?! Where's the beef Joey?

    Oh, and soooooo sorry Joey, I didn't realize that Rousseau was required reading to speak with the great Joey. As I said earlier, you are really depriving the world of a great thinker by working at Ford. Maybe you can take that buy-out and return to your life as a great philosopher! ROFLMAO. Whatever Joey! How about you read yourself some Thomas Paine, and get back with me. Sounds to me like you have been reading the "Lost" recommended reading list, with your Rousseau and Locke, BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA

    ReplyDelete
  73. Joe communism doesn't work for the greater good. Only in theory does communism work. But you libs don't give a shit weather communism failed in every country that has had it just as long as you had good intentions. Joe why don't you and Bruce go and rob some rich guy and give the money to the poor? Or is that wrong? Why don't you hire someone to rob a rich man and then give it to the poor? That is what you want the governemnt to do. You just don't believe in our God given right to life,liberty and the persuet of property. And only God has the right to take and give. I wish more people would help the poor but as you well know the liberals aren't even in the same ballpark when it comes to giving. But I bet you feel great and tell everyone that you give a $1 each week to UNICEF out of your check from Ford. Why is it you libs try to act like you are so rightious when we know the truth about liberal giving. Just look at how little Obama and Biden gave over the last 10 years.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Bruce we all know what you think of insurance companies so why do you take the insurance you have? Are you or were you an SEIU member? We know Joe is a UAW member. You both are in it for union interest not for the interest of the country you self-centered POS.

    ReplyDelete
  75. John, I'm saying that all you Christians that believe it's YOUR money and I presume do believe that all your wealth emanates from god, should at the very least tithe the full 10% that is referred to in the Bible. The reality is that the average Christian gives only 2% of their income in their tithes.

    What is it for you, John?

    Tax rates have been as high as 70% for upper incomes and by some miracle, there is also a correlation to the country being most prosperous for all Americans when tax rates were higher.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Bruce, answer MY questions and then I will be more than happy to answer yours. You said YOU believe in God, so how much do YOU tithe?

    You yourself stated that "Health care is a privilege attainable by the wealthy, a benefit provided solely at the discretion of an employer, a government subsidized insurance plan for the elderly or a charitable gift provided based on the goodwill of others."

    So which are you, wealthy or getting a government subsidy?

    And WHY do you have insurance if you know it is such a scam!?

    See Bruce, I ask you questions and YOU refuse to answer them. So I will just do the same thing. Loser.

    ReplyDelete
  77. PS Bruce, it's those who believe in GOD, not just Christians, who are supposed to tithe 10%. Old testament you idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  78. John, the guy said it was irrefutable, but it had already been refuted prior to me ever writing anything. should i have just take their work and spread it on a post.

    No i took time to criticise his work and made apt points. to criticise his logi is to refute the piece in its own way.

    you are right that i referenced work without quoting it. My blog went on too long and i shortened things i shouldn't have.

    I will toss you this bone, health care is not a natural right. the author is correct in this. He is still worng in eschewing Social Rights although he suspects himself to be a well-thought out constitutionalist of some sort. Health care is a social right, that is the right of people who live within the social compact our country.

    ReplyDelete
  79. John, if i go back to school it would be for a economics degree. My best friend and fellow tradesman has a philosophy degree for UD and i struggled to read Kant with him. i prefer bertrand Russell, john Dewey and other more modern writers although i admit to a liking Rousseau and his ideas of the social contract. If you like we could compare book lists, there might be some you like on mine.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Brian, here's some information that correlates well with your original article.

    Latest Obama poll from Rasmussen

    President Obama's poll numbers went right through the floor today in the Rasmussen Approval Index. The index number is -21 today as 46% strongly disapprove of the President while 25% strongly approve.
    While Obama's numbers have been tanking consistently for months, today's figure is stunning. Gee, let's see what could have caused it.

    In Rasmussen's rolling methodology, today's numbers include Monday's polling results while Friday's results were phased out. The main political event between Friday and Monday was the Senate passage of the "Nebraska Care" plan.

    Hope and Change is not working out so well either, as the President who was going to heal all our divides is finding that we are more divided than ever on race and gender:

    Fifty-three percent (53%) of men Strongly Disapprove along with 39% of women. Most African-American voters (58%) Strongly Approve while most white voters (53%) Strongly Disapprove.

    Seventy-four percent (74%) of Republicans Strongly Disapprove as do 52% of unaffiliated voters. Forty-seven percent (47%) of Democrats Strongly Approve.

    That "post-partisan" thing is not playing out so well either, as the country is sharply divided between the parties:

    Seventy-seven percent (77%) of Democrats approve while 88% of Republicans and 62% of unaffiliated voters disapprove.

    In addition, Obama's sour numbers have reached a critical mass element in soft and hard approvals:

    Overall, 44% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Fifty-six percent (56%) now disapprove.

    This is the first time he has been underwater by double digits in the overall approval index. It also marks the first time that the "strong disapprovals" outweigh all approval, strong and otherwise. That is 46 to 44%. That gives us yet another index: the "Deep Doo Doo" index of minus 2.

    Snapshot of key C. Edmund Wright Indexes:

    Give A Damn Index -25
    This index measures the percentage of overall support that is strong versus overall dissent that is strong. 83% of those disapproving do so strongly, while only 58% of the support is firm. If this is negative, then the most likely movement from here is downward. We have been accurate on this for months.

    Deep Doo Doo Index -2
    This is a new index, measuring all overall support versus just the strong dissent. If this number is not a high positive, the President is in, well, deep doo doo.

    Get A Clue Index -19
    This compares the one legitimate polling sample - likely voters - versus the lowest denominator of polling samples: merely adults. The ten polls using only adults average a +7 while Rasmussen's overall number today is -12. That puts a 19 point gap between legitimate polls and those with an agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Chris, I take the insurance I have because it's my only choice. If there were a public option or a Medicare buy-in and it was the same or better coverage and at a lower cost, I'd be there in a heart beat.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Joey, excuse me if I don't take a self-professed "social anarchist" seriously for his views on social rights.

    ReplyDelete
  83. BWWWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA ... So poor Bruce has been forced into buying into a scam, that's a RICH one Bruce. Poor Bruce has been limited by his imagination into buying into something (health insurance) that he decries as a scam. Wow, you Hypocrats have a lot of bullshit answers but this one takes the cake. Bruce, if you say that insurance will drop you in a hot second if you ever try to collect on it, then WHY in God's name would you HAVE it!?!? Why wouldn't you just save your money in an HSA, or even in your savings?!?! Do you realize what a total ASS you sound like?!?! I mean, this is some kind of bizarro world. Same or better coverage at a lower cost?!?! Same or better than being denied for having high blood pressure?!!? ROFLMAO Well Bruce, Medicare being the biggest denier of claims would be WORSE than what you have now, what do you think about that idiot?!?!

    Bruce FAILk, EPIC HYPOCRAT.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Joey - Just saying that other people, even IF they are philosophers, have different opinions, does NOT constitute refuting an argument.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Joey - Here's one I don't think you've bothered reading: The Constitution of These United States of America and its amendments, including the Bill of Rights. You got any suggestions for me?

    ReplyDelete
  86. "John, the guy said it was irrefutable, but it had already been refuted prior to me ever writing anything. should i have just take their work and spread it on a post." That's right I did and so far, you've doing nothing to disprove it.

    "If there were a public option or a Medicare buy-in and it was the same or better coverage and at a lower cost, I'd be there in a heart beat."

    Bruce's intelligence shines through again. He would gladly pay less for the same or better coverage. Sounds like a difficult choice to me.

    Salesman: You can have the Cadillac or the Yugo for the same price. Which one would you like?

    Bruce: After some deep thought and serious reflection, I'll take the Cadillac.

    Of course, anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of Economics, knows you can control the price of most things, but not the costs. Somewhere, somehow somebody is going to pay so Bruce can get his "better" coverage for a lesser price. Not that he worries about such things.

    ReplyDelete
  87. john, i've read the constitution and the bill of rights. i've also read Madisons federalist papers, assorted other works and i have the anti-federalist papers sitting on a shelf in my locker as i type.

    Here read madisons work for yourself...
    http://www.usconstitution.net/madisonbor.html


    You are excused for not feeling i'm adequate authority on these things as i am not. After all i am just a dumb old factory worker like Brian here. Nothing remarkable about us factory workers. The only thing i have going for me is a degree in my trade and the fact that i passed a four year apprenticeship. Other than that i am just like any other braindead line worker. I even worked the same machines as Brian when i worked at Sterling.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Well now Joey, you are just putting words in my mouth. My point was that you are a self-professed social-anarchist, and yet you are discussing social rights. Seems pretty ... well, it's as hilarious to me as you saying you want to be an economist, but you sure seem to have socialist, if not communist, economic preferences. Is there a need for an economist in a communist system?

    Anyway, my father was a Pipefitter for GM, so I obviously am not putting down your profession. You seem pretty touchy on the subject that I didn't bring up too, so just relax.

    I tell you what though, he sure didn't think very highly of the corrupt union in his final years. And there was a reason that the union workers called it Generous Motors, among other things. And I was production and maintenance supervisor at Ford for several years, and I can tell you first hand (although I'm sure you are quite aware of it) I have seen my share of hard-workers, but I sure have seen my share of lazy-assed good-for-nothing useless (or even BEYOND useless to down-right destructive) workers. Guess which kind the union always backs up!?

    ReplyDelete
  89. Bruce said,"Chris, I take the insurance I have because it's my only choice. If there were a public option or a Medicare buy-in and it was the same or better coverage and at a lower cost, I'd be there in a heart beat." No shit dumbass. But it is none of the things you want.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Hey Bruce, Jamie Leigh Jones was more than likely "whore-ing" around over in Iraq then wanted to sue somebody when she got caught. What was she doing getting drunk out in the middle of Iraq with a couple of hundred horney fire-fighters ?

    Her story was probably a "cover" for her behavior, and I don't think the taxpayers should have to pay for the frivolous lawsuits !

    ReplyDelete