17 comments posted · 2 followers · following 0
However, why haven’t we heard about the other candidates out there? How many other liberal judges are there out there with less inflammatory records that would serve the liberal agenda just fine? How many other black, female, or black/female judges are out there that have better records? Or, - gasp - could there possibly be an old, white male out there with a better record? Could the Republicans have instead opposed her by demonstrating that better qualified judges were passed over so that Obama could put someone on the bench who was Hispanic? That he did it to court Hispanic voters?
Remember the start of this – unless the Republicans have a point, why oppose? Just tell the voters “Hey, we screwed up. We became power-mad, big money spenders who thought we would stay in office by doing the wrong thing for you so we just lost two elections in a big way.” “But now, we’re going to start doing the right thing again. We’re going to let this woman ascend to the bench and we are going to go back to work trying to make a difference that matters instead of doing a little puppet show for you.” “We need to work on getting the word out about FOCA, Card Check, Health Care, Cap and Trade, and all the other things that America is being buried under. We need to make a difference that matters”
Bottom line – unless you can use this to demonstrate pure political opportunism, show up, cast your vote and represent your constituents. Cast your vote on principle when it is time and work on what you can change.
Things like no exclusions, Comparative Effectiveness Research, are changes that we don't fully understand yet. Realize, though, that insurance companies make a substantial portion of their income through investment of your premiums. They certainly aren't stuffing it in a mattress. Depending on who you listen to, the insurance companies are behind this. They could raise their premiums to offset the additional payouts. I would guess they will, or they will support CER to reduce payouts. Either way, the public loses. And there will be the politicians, dangling their carrot - buy our brand, and appreciate us for giving it to you. Except you forget that what they are giving you, they took from someone else.
There are two issues in this debate, and the politicians are, as usual, using misdirection to achieve their goals. Remember, they're too afraid to take on the legal profession, and they want to expand the number of people who are receiving something for nothing. Unfortunately for the rich, the money taken from them by Congress is used to support programs to generate votes against the interests of business and rights of individuals.
And where do I go if I want to contact the administrators?
How and when did health care become a right? Or is Congress attempting to appear they are acting under the premise this is part of the general welfare clause of Article I, Section 8?
And as far as providing insurance - how can the government do this and not be competing with private industry? They're not allowed to do that.
Even the 'right' is catching on. If they don't get rid of the old farts, they're going to get bounced out on their buts too, as we become older and crotchetier. I love bipartisanship - What is that great example of compromise? - I can hear it now - "I believe it is peace in our time" (quote verified on Wikiquote). That's what I hear when I hear the word bipartisanship. And I trust the Progressive movement just as much as Chamberlain should have trusted the Nazis.
When I get my 'final counseling' about how I should be comfortable and accept my death, the only comfort I plan on indulging in is going out and finding a few of the people who brought this situation about and introducing myself. I could use some companions on my trip to hell.
Rod and his Honey
Oh, yeah, the other great benefit of getting rid of the aged? It tilts the electorate toward 'stupid'. All the wisdom and experience that tend to make people become more conservative as they get older will be flushed away as the country is purified by the elimination of the aged. Benefit? Progressives and liberals will be voted in by landslides as the unthinking masses being trained in our schools come of voting age. Youth will be glorified and served in a way it never has before. It won't be enough to look 30 when you're 50, if the spot on your hand turns black (can't remember the color for sure), it's time to report for renewal.
What does this mean? They fear the growing older population - they want us to die to end their obligation after stealing from us for generations, they don't want us to become the single largest voting block in the country. Time to prune the family tree.
-third and last below-
See rest of post in follow-up posts - hope it's not considered abuse.