[TheRealThing]

“We will be running on ObamaCare in 2014,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“In fact, we set it up to run on it in 2014,” he continued. “We fully expect to run on it; we expect to win on it. The American people will be the winner.”


Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-...z2boP4U9GV



The majority ranks of those who believe ObamaCare won't work and should be repealed continue to swell. http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/24/vi...-repealed/

I hope Clyburn is right and dems are planning to run on ObamaCare. What say you?

[RunItUpTheGut]

Big mistakes if the dems do.

Even some of the most liberal of orginizations have seen the effects of obamacare. I believe they thought it wasnt going to hurt them, but quickly found out it was.

When your teamsters have a problem with it, most dems will. And all Repubs hate it.

2014 could be the year that Repubs really take a strangle hold on the country. However, i wouldnt put it past them to screw it up.

[Granny Bear]

I agree with Gut. Republican leaders are playing the same kind of game and I have lost most of my confidence and respect for them. I'm not sure where we go from here. When Obama won the second term, I absolutely could not believe it! I'm still in awe of how many people voted for him, and how they could all be so stupid.

Sorry...that's just how I feel.

[Wildcatk23]

Until the republicans drop their morals they will not win another election.

[TheRealThing]

^Not picking on you here Wildcat, you did bring up a very good point. Consider California Governor Jerry Brown's view on morals for example.

"SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday signed legislation allowing students in California schools to compete on sports teams and use facilities, including restrooms, based on their gender identity, regardless of whether they are listed as male or female in official campus records.


The legislation is aimed at all sex-segregated school programs and facilities, allowing girls who identify themselves as boys to join boys’ teams and vice versa.

“All students should have the opportunity to fully participate and succeed in school,” said Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor."
http://www.latimes.com/local/political/l...6863.story


Can you believe this? I'm telling you, many of these career politicians have lost their minds. This argument that a person's private life is of no consequence to his ability to govern is ludacris. Remember that argument put forth by John Conyers, Shelia Jackson Lee, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank and Maxine Waters during the impeachment proceedings for Bill Clinton? The Bible says (paraphrased) "even a little yeast, will make the entire loaf of bread rise". Speaking of deceit, a little goes a long way. How far we have fallen since that day. Before William Jefferson Clinton and his wagon circling democratic 'friends', defended him for whom there was no defense solely for the sake of personal agenda, there was a general trust of politicians at the federal level. After Bill Clinton, the morals of American politicians have seemingly been in a state of free fall. Lies emanating out of the Oval Office mean nothing now and America has never had less regard for the federal government as the direct result.

And so, we find ourselves now with an electorate that couldn't care less about whether their governing officials lie to them or not. Prioritizing their concerns around how much the politician promises give them in return for their vote. In 2008, I recall vividly the cartoons of our president making promises to folks, saying if he got elected in he would heal all our ills. One woman in Chicago's Grant Park, upon hearing that Barack would be our next president was sobbing, so grateful that now she wouldn't have to worry about her house payment or how she would put gas in her car. BTW, I don't know how things are now in her world but, in mine things like house payments are still a bit of a challenge, LOL.

We have to start vetting the character of the these guys to some degree if we expect to survive as a people. It really is time to get a proper view of reality. Liberals will see us smoldering on history's ash heap of broken nations long before they will ever change their ways. Like jihadies, this is just who they are and, if we continue to send them to office we can expect only more of the same. So, Wildcat is right to point out that America is for sale to the highest bidder, or in this case perhaps, the 'lowest' bidder.

[nky]

Soooooooooooo we can't have morals anymore? This country is far worst than I thought

[RunItUpTheGut]

Until the republicans drop their morals they will not win another election.

Then personally id rather not win an election and die.

[vector]

“We will be running on ObamaCare in 2014,” Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) said during an interview on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

“In fact, we set it up to run on it in 2014,” he continued. “We fully expect to run on it; we expect to win on it. The American people will be the winner.”


Read more: http://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-...z2boP4U9GV



The majority ranks of those who believe ObamaCare won't work and should be repealed continue to swell. http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/24/vi...-repealed/

I hope Clyburn is right and dems are planning to run on ObamaCare. What say you?

I thought we had that election in 2012?

[Wildcatk23]

^Not picking on you here Wildcat, you did bring up a very good point. Consider California Governor Jerry Brown's view on morals for example.

"SACRAMENTO -- Gov. Jerry Brown on Monday signed legislation allowing students in California schools to compete on sports teams and use facilities, including restrooms, based on their gender identity, regardless of whether they are listed as male or female in official campus records.


The legislation is aimed at all sex-segregated school programs and facilities, allowing girls who identify themselves as boys to join boys’ teams and vice versa.

“All students should have the opportunity to fully participate and succeed in school,” said Evan Westrup, a spokesman for the governor."
http://www.latimes.com/local/political/l...6863.story


Can you believe this? I'm telling you, many of these career politicians have lost their minds. This argument that a person's private life is of no consequence to his ability to govern is ludacris. Remember that argument put forth by John Conyers, Shelia Jackson Lee, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank and Maxine Waters during the impeachment proceedings for Bill Clinton? The Bible says (paraphrased) "even a little yeast, will make the entire loaf of bread rise". Speaking of deceit, a little goes a long way. How far we have fallen since that day. Before William Jefferson Clinton and his wagon circling democratic 'friends', defended him for whom there was no defense solely for the sake of personal agenda, there was a general trust of politicians at the federal level. After Bill Clinton, the morals of American politicians have seemingly been in a state of free fall. Lies emanating out of the Oval Office mean nothing now and America has never had less regard for the federal government as the direct result.

And so, we find ourselves now with an electorate that couldn't care less about whether their governing officials lie to them or not. Prioritizing their concerns around how much the politician promises give them in return for their vote. In 2008, I recall vividly the cartoons of our president making promises to folks, saying if he got elected in he would heal all our ills. One woman in Chicago's Grant Park, upon hearing that Barack would be our next president was sobbing, so grateful that now she wouldn't have to worry about her house payment or how she would put gas in her car. BTW, I don't know how things are now in her world but, in mine things like house payments are still a bit of a challenge, LOL.

We have to start vetting the character of the these guys to some degree if we expect to survive as a people. It really is time to get a proper view of reality. Liberals will see us smoldering on history's ash heap of broken nations long before they will ever change their ways. Like jihadies, this is just who they are and, if we continue to send them to office we can expect only more of the same. So, Wildcat is right to point out that America is for sale to the highest bidder, or in this case perhaps, the 'lowest' bidder.

Its a who can help me the most election . Since they are far more takers usually the one offering the most to the lazy will win.

Religion is a big issue , no one wants to be told who they can worship or what to believe in. Most younger kids believe if they vote republican then they have to be a Christian and so on.

Equal rights for gays is also anther big issue. Most younger kids don't care who is gay and who's not . If the republicans would drop that issue they could take a couple seats or the thrown.

[Wildcatk23]

Soooooooooooo we can't have morals anymore? This country is far worst than I thought

Should politicians have morals or be worried about the economy and foreign issues ? Separation of church and state ?

[Wildcatk23]

Then personally id rather not win an election and die.

I didn't realize you ran for a position .

[MustangSally]

Should politicians have morals or be worried about the economy and foreign issues ? Separation of church and state ?

Can't you have both?
Don't the liberal preach social justice?

[TheRealThing]

I thought we had that election in 2012?

You quoted me in your post, you did notice that it was Jim Clyburn (D) SC, third ranking democrat in the House behind Pelosi and Hoyer, doing all the talking, right? I quoted him in the thread starter but, to directly respond to your statement. If you want to take the time to check, the overwhelming majority of Americans now do not believe ObamaCare will work. According to Rasmussen, 61% of Americans expect health care to get worse over the next two years with 53% having an unfavorable view of ObamaCare. Only 41% have a somewhat favorable view, a number that will go down dramatically when folks realize how high their coverage premiums are set to go after this year.

Clyburn et-al, confidently believe they are riding a tidal wave of change. And that liberal/progressive voting blocks will continue to sweep away conservative challengers. On the contrary, while the president was indeed able to blow enough dense smoke up people's drawers to carry the day in his election, the same will not be true in the congressional races. Just as republicans swept the mid-terms of 2010, I predict the House and the Senate will be controlled by republicans from 2014 thru 2016. Obama will have to learn how to govern instead of steamrolling opponents with a super majority. Democrats are bailing out from publicly supporting ObamaCare due to the rising angst of voters who are bleeding out of their ears over the steep raises in their health insurance premiums.

So, from my perspective, I hope the dems do as Clyburn said in his statement --- “We will be running on ObamaCare in 2014,” In fact, we set it up to run on it in 2014,” he continued. “We fully expect to run on it; we expect to win on it. The American people will be the winner.” By the time November 4, of next year rolls around, a lot more than Jimmy Hoffa will be upset. Mine workers in West Virginia have managed to see the light, if it happened there it can happen anywhere.

[Wildcatk23]

Can't you have both?
Don't the liberal preach social justice?

I'm not expressing my personal opinion. Just stating what's keeping the republicans from the White House.

I'm sure separation of church and state was created for a reason.

[TheRealThing]

I'm not expressing my personal opinion. Just stating what's keeping the republicans from the White House.

I'm sure separation of church and state was created for a reason.

None the less, it is a bit ironic though. According to the democratic liberal view of the concept of separation of church and state, the church is barred from making any suggestion to the state as to how it does it's business, nor can the state justify any law or policy by the teachings of the church and yet conversely, in no way is the state hindered from making judgments and laws regarding the business of the church. As usual, the liberal finds a way to have the best of both worlds.

The state can make laws to make homosexuality legal, the state can make laws that allow women to kill their infant children, the state has decided to create our current version of the welfare state and etc. etc. All of which matters are clearly within the purview of the church, as they have to do exclusively with moral behavior or lack thereof.

Actually, the founding fathers were trying to keep the state from meddling in the affairs of the church but, if you're saying Republicans must advocate for the immoral practices of homosexuality, abortion on demand, an unregulated free-for-all immigration policy which has already seen this land engorged with many millions of non-productive illegals, in order to win public office then, it's all but over anyway. Surely, you're not suggesting Christians/conservatives should just wave the white flag because man's bent for sin is so overpowering are you? I can assure you God is not impressed with those who give up. Nor is He in any way impressed with the bizillions who seem to think there is safety in numbers; Matthew 7:13-14 (KJV)
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

[Wildcatk23]

None the less, it is a bit ironic though. According to the democratic liberal view of the concept of separation of church and state, the church is barred from making any suggestion to the state as to how it does it's business, nor can the state justify any law or policy by the teachings of the church and yet conversely, in no way is the state hindered from making judgments and laws regarding the business of the church. As usual, the liberal finds a way to have the best of both worlds.

The state can make laws to make homosexuality legal, the state can make laws that allow women to kill their infant children, the state has decided to create our current version of the welfare state and etc. etc. All of which matters are clearly within the purview of the church, as they have to do exclusively with moral behavior or lack thereof.

Actually, the founding fathers were trying to keep the state from meddling in the affairs of the church but, if you're saying Republicans must advocate for the immoral practices of homosexuality, abortion on demand, an unregulated free-for-all immigration policy which has already seen this land engorged with many millions of non-productive illegals, in order to win public office then, it's all but over anyway. Surely, you're not suggesting Christians/conservatives should just wave the white flag because man's bent for sin is so overpowering are you? I can assure you God is not impressed with those who give up. Nor is He in any way impressed with the bizillions who seem to think there is safety in numbers; Matthew 7:13-14 (KJV)
13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.

You can't aussure me anything. Thats your personal opinion and you cannot speak for God.

[nky]

I'm not expressing my personal opinion. Just stating what's keeping the republicans from the White House.

I'm sure separation of church and state was created for a reason.

Wasn't there a republican in the White House prior to The current Democart? Seems like over the last 50 years it's been pretty split 50-50.

[TheRealThing]

You can't aussure me anything. Thats your personal opinion and you cannot speak for God.

You're exactly right. If you are determined to see things your way there isn't a thing I can do about that. God has chosen to use His people, the saved from among humanity, to speak for Him in this world. You have every right to ignore every last bit of truth coming your direction. But, make no mistake, though men would rather distort and confuse the matter as if it is somehow impossible to take anybody's word for, the truth is attainable from God's Holy Word, and is not some vague and indeterminate mystery.

The fact remains as I stated in the first two paragraphs of my post. Liberals/democrats, want to dictate terms. They like to hold their opinions out as being the only ones that are relevant in today's world. In other words, they reserve for themselves the right or power, to declare that they are right all the time (and that, in direct contradiction to the very concise record as is enshrined in the Library of Congress) while at the same time, they declare conservatives to be a bunch of lying hypocrites. Like in the case of our Creator Who had to but speak this universe into existence, liberals think they can 'talk' reality into existence, as has been the predilection of our president. Time and again his proclamations have been proven false and still he keeps laying out the same old liberal dream. America's greatness was achieved by hard work and sacrifice. Not through some kind of shortcut like "Extreme Makeover". Equality of opportunity is out there for those who are man enough to seize the reins.

It's hard to make one's own way in the world. Men have to work, and strive against seemingly impossible odds and often times against backstabbing weasels who falsely represent themselves as friends. But, the new message as delivered by liberal la-la's is that government will give folks everything they want. And that it is government's responsibility to see that the needs and wants of the masses are attainable with little or no struggle. I am reminded of the famous quote by the French philosopher, Rene Descartes; "I think, therefore I am" We have turned that rationale around saying; "I want therefore government should give it to me."

The willingness for folks to be deceived into believing there is such a thing as free health care is evident in our day. There is no funding for ObamaCare outside of the 780 billion that is confiscated each year from the Medicare System and the skyrocketing health insurance premiums resultant from it's coming implementation. Enter president Obama, who tells the glassy eyed believers that their care will be free from now on. Evidence to date would say otherwise. Employers are reducing full time employees hours down to something under 30 hours a week to avoid the federal mandate. And, all the insurance companies finding themselves in a fight for their business lives are jacking rates through the roof.

FWIW, Nobel Prize winning economist Milton Friedman loved the idiom "There ain't no such thing as a free lunch" That was true in the last century and it is certainly true in this one.

[MustangSally]

I'm not expressing my personal opinion. Just stating what's keeping the republicans from the White House.

I'm sure separation of church and state was created for a reason.

Seems you're buying into the media left leaning spin.

[TheRealThing]

Wasn't there a republican in the White House prior to The current Democart? Seems like over the last 50 years it's been pretty split 50-50.

Of course your point is well taken and accurate. In fact, starting with the JFK presidency, Republicans have held the office 32 years and the Democrats 21 years, with 3 years unfortunately remaining unfulfilled in BHO's second term. We might get to the point someday soon where only hellions have a say in the workings of our government but thankfully, that day is not yet.

This is just my personal opinion but, a big boost to the democratic cause has been the relative explosion of vote fraud. I believe the last election would have been quite a bit closer if not for the fraud and to be clear, no I can't prove that. But, there are a number of things happening that would seem to lend credibility to my suspicions. Among them for example is vote fraud, to me there is a reason dems are fighting so hard to resist national voter ID's. What's the big deal? Citizens have 2 full years to comply with the requirement to get an ID. If there is in any way, the least inconvenience to the voter associated with getting the ID, the government will make sure they are not charged a dime during the procurement process, or after. As has been pointed out, they have to have an ID to drive, buy alcohol or tobacco products and they have to have an ID to access the replete array of entitlement services available to them. You don't hear any fussing and fuming about ID's for services, but supposedly proving who one is at the poll is just too much to ask and is aimed at denying minorities the right to vote. There just ain't a crock big enough to hold it all, LOL.

No, the reason dems don't want voter ID's to be displayed for identification purposes of any would-be voter, is because voter fraud would become much harder to get by with. It should be abundantly obvious that dems who say poor blacks and Hispanics would be disenfranchised are trying to protect their voting base. If the law says voters must be registered and identifiable, then that's how it should be. I mean, let's be honest here, if all these folks voted republican it would be the dems that were screaming about voter fraud but, since the fraud benefits their side it's durn the torpedoes and full speed ahead!

[vector]

You quoted me in your post, you did notice that it was Jim Clyburn (D) SC, third ranking democrat in the House behind Pelosi and Hoyer, doing all the talking, right? I quoted him in the thread starter but, to directly respond to your statement. If you want to take the time to check, the overwhelming majority of Americans now do not believe ObamaCare will work. According to Rasmussen, 61% of Americans expect health care to get worse over the next two years with 53% having an unfavorable view of ObamaCare. Only 41% have a somewhat favorable view, a number that will go down dramatically when folks realize how high their coverage premiums are set to go after this year.

Clyburn et-al, confidently believe they are riding a tidal wave of change. And that liberal/progressive voting blocks will continue to sweep away conservative challengers. On the contrary, while the president was indeed able to blow enough dense smoke up people's drawers to carry the day in his election, the same will not be true in the congressional races. Just as republicans swept the mid-terms of 2010, I predict the House and the Senate will be controlled by republicans from 2014 thru 2016. Obama will have to learn how to govern instead of steamrolling opponents with a super majority. Democrats are bailing out from publicly supporting ObamaCare due to the rising angst of voters who are bleeding out of their ears over the steep raises in their health insurance premiums.

So, from my perspective, I hope the dems do as Clyburn said in his statement --- “We will be running on ObamaCare in 2014,” In fact, we set it up to run on it in 2014,” he continued. “We fully expect to run on it; we expect to win on it. The American people will be the winner.” By the time November 4, of next year rolls around, a lot more than Jimmy Hoffa will be upset. Mine workers in West Virginia have managed to see the light, if it happened there it can happen anywhere.

well I hope you people keep the same message yiou had in 2012

[vector]

Of course your point is well taken and accurate. In fact, starting with the JFK presidency, Republicans have held the office 32 years and the Democrats 21 years, with 3 years unfortunately remaining unfulfilled in BHO's second term. We might get to the point someday soon where only hellions have a say in the workings of our government but thankfully, that day is not yet.

This is just my personal opinion but, a big boost to the democratic cause has been the relative explosion of vote fraud. I believe the last election would have been quite a bit closer if not for the fraud and to be clear, no I can't prove that. But, there are a number of things happening that would seem to lend credibility to my suspicions. Among them for example is vote fraud, to me there is a reason dems are fighting so hard to resist national voter ID's. What's the big deal? Citizens have 2 full years to comply with the requirement to get an ID. If there is in any way, the least inconvenience to the voter associated with getting the ID, the government will make sure they are not charged a dime during the procurement process, or after. As has been pointed out, they have to have an ID to drive, buy alcohol or tobacco products and they have to have an ID to access the replete array of entitlement services available to them. You don't hear any fussing and fuming about ID's for services, but supposedly proving who one is at the poll is just too much to ask and is aimed at denying minorities the right to vote. There just ain't a crock big enough to hold it all, LOL.

No, the reason dems don't want voter ID's to be displayed for identification purposes of any would-be voter, is because voter fraud would become much harder to get by with. It should be abundantly obvious that dems who say poor blacks and Hispanics would be disenfranchised are trying to protect their voting base. If the law says voters must be registered and identifiable, then that's how it should be. I mean, let's be honest here, if all these folks voted republican it would be the dems that were screaming about voter fraud but, since the fraud benefits their side it's durn the torpedoes and full speed ahead!

if you think it's about voter fraud you are way off

[nky]

I'm not expressing my personal opinion. Just stating what's keeping the republicans from the White House.

I'm sure separation of church and state was created for a reason.

Where was that created?

[TheRealThing]

if you think it's about voter fraud you are way off

No, I'm not. And for the sake of this conversation, I'm certainly not alone in my suspicions. There are many good people of all walks of life that agree, voter fraud is a lot bigger problem than most people want to believe.

Big city polls are rife with fraudulent voting practices. I cited more than one link outlining documented occurrences of folks voting over and over again. Acorn workers registering the same people dozens of times. Poll workers who let people vote who do not have any ID or any way to prove they are legally registered to vote or, people who wander in off the street are registered on the spot (without ID) and allowed to vote in one handy set up. And, of course there is my personal favorite, the famous Chi-town 'dead' vote, LOL. All of which means that in big city precincts where thousands of illegal immigrants tend to gather, many are allowed to vote, again illegally. American citizens deserve better out the electoral process. Even one illegal vote is unacceptable, let alone the possible millions that have been privately estimated to have been counted.

Liberals hide behind their strawman argument that legal citizens, the poor in this case, will be disenfranchised by arrogant white republicans. They know all too well that the problem is not with legal citizens. The problem is with the 12 or 13 million illegal immigrants who are loose in this country, many of whom manage to find their way to the polls on election day. Maybe in a banana republic it would be a problem for some of the legal population to get a free voter ID, not so here in America. There is only one reason to fight against voter identification, somebody wants to cheat. Since nobody is stupid enough to claim any of these folk want to vote republican we all know what's going on.

[TheRealThing]

well I hope you people keep the same message yiou had in 2012

Which was what according to you?

[tvtimeout]

If obamacare is pushed for 2014, the democrats should win Laurel Co. Kentucky! 1600 New jobs ranging from 12 to 20 dollars an hr. just opening up because of the roll over contract! All I can say is wow for an area that needs jobs more and more what an economic boost, even if it is a short run could you imagine what that would do for the little shop keeps in Laurel Co!

[tvtimeout]

No, I'm not. And for the sake of this conversation, I'm certainly not alone in my suspicions. There are many good people of all walks of life that agree, voter fraud is a lot bigger problem than most people want to believe.

Big city polls are rife with fraudulent voting practices. I cited more than one link outlining documented occurrences of folks voting over and over again. Acorn workers registering the same people dozens of times. Poll workers who let people vote who do not have any ID or any way to prove they are legally registered to vote or, people who wander in off the street are registered on the spot (without ID) and allowed to vote in one handy set up. And, of course there is my personal favorite, the famous Chi-town 'dead' vote, LOL. All of which means that in big city precincts where thousands of illegal immigrants tend to gather, many are allowed to vote, again illegally. American citizens deserve better out the electoral process. Even one illegal vote is unacceptable, let alone the possible millions that have been privately estimated to have been counted.

Liberals hide behind their strawman argument that legal citizens, the poor in this case, will be disenfranchised by arrogant white republicans. They know all too well that the problem is not with legal citizens. The problem is with the 12 or 13 million illegal immigrants who are loose in this country, many of whom manage to find their way to the polls on election day. Maybe in a banana republic it would be a problem for some of the legal population to get a free voter ID, not so here in America. There is only one reason to fight against voter identification, somebody wants to cheat. Since nobody is stupid enough to claim any of these folk want to vote republican we all know what's going on.

I agree with you in McCreary Co. they recently had a wet/dry vote... it seems there was alot of dead folks voting in that one! It is currently under investigation.

[TheRealThing]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[RunItUpTheGut]

Should politicians have morals or be worried about the economy and foreign issues ? Separation of church and state ?

:biglmao:


Well considering the DEMS are not worried about the economy and are worried about gays marrying, i guess thats kind of a double edged sword that just stabbed the Dems in the back.

Those are moral issues and thats all the DEMS are worrying about.
Its obvious there not worried about the economy. Everyon gave up hope on that 4 or 5 years ago.

[vector]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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