Header Image (book)

aowheader.3.2.gif

Monday, November 17, 2014

Unhinged Rage

In the blogosphere and elsewhere (Jonathan Gruber, for example, although not a ranter), we see on vivid display what Leftist true believers actually believe:
Republicans lie, they want to see you dead, they’d rather make money off your dead corpse.
There should be spittle all over their collective faces and, in the case of television, the camera lens covered with streaks and globs of projective spittle:


Such rants spew forth from those the Left, the Right, and even the Center.

Right now, of course, since the 2014 Elections in which the GOP attained a majority in both Houses of Congress and in state legislatures, the Left is screeching the loudest because of electile dysfunction.

Expect more of the same screeching and ranting until at least November 2016. The smell of the Left's defeat is in the air, and the Left will not slither away without stirring up a huge fuss — not that the Right or the Center would exit quietly, either, if the situation were reversed.

In the immortal words of Bette Davis in All About Eve:

93 comments:

  1. How else do you explain the lies about Obamacare's so called 'death panels' when in fact the GOP were supporting the insurance companies who were denying coverage and allowing people to die. And now they want to return to that. So, yeah, they'd rather we just die than have to cut into their profits.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. One small step in the never-ending campaign to educate the ignorant:

      Obamacare turns Obama and Insurers into Allies according to Obama's own Pravda, The New York Times.

      Delete
    2. @ This One,

      Are you really Nancy Pelosi, incognito ?

      Delete
    3. The Affordable Care Act does little to control costs and relieve the American insurance system from the waste of antitrust exempt, for profit insurers?

      Wow, thanks for educating us poor benighted leftists.

      Don't it drag on.

      Delete
    4. And you can thank the GOP for making sure insurance companies played a larger part in the ACA than Obama originally wanted. They made damn sure they continue to make their billions off the health of Americans.

      Delete
    5. Pookie Toot-Toot, if the insurance companies don't recover the costs of doing business in the first place, how do you expect to be insured? Did you invent a money tree, Pookie Toot-Toot?

      Delete
    6. Mystere,

      Of course, the progressive end game is to completely choke out insurance companies and all private sector medical markets. Short of that, they want to get them completely under government control.

      The end game is the same: Government health care.

      Why smash the windows and steal the goods when you can coerce the store owners to give it to you?

      Honesty was never the left's strong suit

      Delete
  2. Wait until Obama and Holder get their wish in Ferguson.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Rage?
    18 Syrian men were beheaded as well as the American. we're is the RAGE from Obama? Can the only thing he can find to speak about if Exutive Privlrdge?
    What a Creep!

    ReplyDelete
  4. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Speaking of Lying Leftists... CAIR and MAS have been officially designated terrorist organizations.

    Two Islamic groups in the U.S. that portray themselves as moderate and mainstream expressed shock to learn at the weekend that the United Arab Emirates had included them in a list of terrorist organizations. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which describes itself as “America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization,” and the Muslim American Society (MAS), which calls itself “a religious community service organization,” were among more than 80 groups whose designation was approved by the UAE cabinet and announced on Saturday. Others listed included al-Qaeda and its various affiliates in Pakistan, Syria, Yemen and North Africa; the Islamic State

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wow, Thersites...I got SO hopeful when I saw what you'd written, only to realize yet AGAIN that it's only foreign countries with sensible governments. Ah, so the UAE gets it. We still don't.
      Take another example; the Left laughs at the Right for suggesting maybe we don't want any flights from ebola-central....we're 'racist' for suggesting what we did...yet 14 African countries DID stop flights coming in.
      The lies/fun never stop, to they.
      Good for the UAE....smart move.

      Delete
    2. z, UAE is also funding ISIS. Smart move?

      Delete
    3. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/30/uae-united-arab-emirates-leading-player-opposition-isis-middle-east

      Nobody knows for sure that UAE is funding ISIS.
      But, if you have that information, you should definitely call the White House.

      Delete
  6. The recent elections have gotten a great deal of worldwide attention, and rightly so. Our
    Our Emperor Barack Obama has done NOTHING about Iran or Syria either for that matter..
    Maybe we did sidestep the UN...so it is clear now, more than ever that we and our allies are deeply, deeply concerned w/ ISIS. probably more to that reason than we know. If Obama, of all people, is willing to swing the Hammer this hard, something really bad is happening, could it be the Beheadings? Naw, I really doubt if Obama is that concerned over a few America’s heads. In fact I’d be surprised if Obama even missed a round of Golf because of that. The left is more upset about companies not paying for all possible forms of birth control than the senseless Beheadings and murders of innocentmericans.
    When George W. Bush inserted Iran into his “axis of evil,” many, perhaps most, liberals were horrified. Some, perhaps rightly, pointed out that very publicly singling out three widely separated countries as “evil” might not be smart diplomacy. (And in hindsight, Bush was only able to deal with one of them; the one that was the least dangerous, and allowed the more dangerous two to continue their pursuit of nuclear weapons). But most were outraged that Bush called Iran evil at all, at any time.

    Think about it. Not even the Nazis beheaded people and paraded in front of the world via youtube..
    What is going on in Iran and in Syria is the norm in most of the Arab world. Those who live in the West forget that the rights they enjoy are very uncommon, and rarely found outside of Europe and America. They are the exception—in most places, dictatorship, corruption, and brutality are the norm.
    These critics thought that Iran, if not a Western style liberal democracy, was essentially a benign country. Matt Yglesias (who is a fairly mainstream liberal, far from the lunatic fringe) wrote blog posts suggesting that any attempts by Iran to appease the United States would be unwise, since the U.S. (this was during the Bush Administration) was run by neocons (with ties to AIPAC) who would be perfectly willing to attack Iran without provocation. Yglesias also penned a surreal post in which he said that Ahmadinejad had a “pretty sweet hipster style” (because he addressed the U.N. General Assembly tireless), and suggested that Bush might want to try some Iran-style diplomacy.

    Yglesias is hardly the only liberal writer to have been so ridiculously easy on Iran—such attitudes were the rule rather than the exception on the Left until the Iran elections made Iran persona non grata in the West. But when considering the Left’s angry denunciations of Iran (now, Yglesias goes so far as to compare Admadinejad to Sarah Palin), it should be remembered that until a few weeks ago, most on the Left were making excuses for the same brutal regime.

    Everyone condemns Iran’s brutality. But it is far too often forgotten that in most of the world, such violence is the rule, not the exception. Most countries on Earth are dictatorships; few are democracies. But most Americans are content to shut their eyes to that fact, unless the occasional foreign PR disaster ensures that evidence of dictatorship is thrust in their faces.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did no one ever tell you, dear, that brevity is the soul of wit?

      Haline Mauvais de Trop

      Delete
  7. Ed Schultz is absolutely representative of liberal thought.
    So Laura Ingraham must be absolutely representative of right wing thought/

    You see where this is going.

    May I submit that a fringe right winger complaining about Obama not "doing anything" about Iran (who this sage equates to the "Arab world") is indicative of the problem.

    Not that Schultz is much more than a ratings pimp.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No comparison.

      Fat head Ed is a red-faced ranter, a firebug sitting on a powder keg playing with matches. Boob bait for bolsheviks.

      Laura Ingraham is a graceful, intelligent lady. But since she is on the right -- Repeat after me kids, and follow the commie-red bouncing ball -- She's bad, and a stupid doody-head and a selfish meanie, and she's one of those intolerant Christians as well, so she's anathema.

      Liberals are the most intolerant and hateful people in America.

      Delete
    2. Liberals are the most intolerant and hateful people in America.

      No kidding!

      In all my life, I have personally met only one tolerant liberals-- one of my America History professors. That was back in 1972, though.

      PS: Yes, I'm still here -- even after yesterday's grueling day. Finally got Mr. AOW's hospital bed repaired after two weeks of trying to get the part.

      Delete
  8. Everyone complains about the ISIS beheadings. No one say's "Boo!" about the Shi'a militia's that were responsible for the formation of ISIS and made possible by the US' complete withdrawal from Iraq.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Others would say that allowing the Shia's in Iraq to run roughshod over the Sunni's is the root of the problem.
      Others might say that De-Baathification which supplied the Sunni militias with trained leadership was short sighted.

      All but the most doctrinaire fringe right who believe we could have occupied Iraq forever do see that we had to get out eventually and then it would have all started again.

      What we will NEVER do is take responsibility for the asinine occupation.

      Delete
    2. The problem with you, ducky, is that you lack the vision that would have colonized and assimilated the Middle East, much as the way the British/ French colonized North America. :P

      Delete
    3. Exploitatus Interruptus is a strategy for losers.

      Delete
    4. Taking responsibility means never having to say, "I'm sorry".

      Delete
    5. It's a shame that when Obama was at the G-20, he wasn't taking notes!

      Delete
    6. "No one say's "Boo!" about the Shi'a militia's that were responsible for the formation of ISIS and made possible by the US' complete withdrawal from Iraq."

      Spot on about the Shi'a militia's....but not so much the second part. The right has staked their erroneous claim all over the US withdrawal from Iraq. Hypothesizing that a constabulary US presence [rendered moot by the 2008 SOFA and the Maliki regime refusal to grant an extension] would have stopped the growth of ISIS is disingenuous as it ignores the fact that they gained their peak strength in Syria....not Iraq.

      Delete
    7. You didn't think your comment all the way through, did you?

      Because a US presence would have kept ISIS IN Syria...fighting against Bashar al Assad instead of the Iraqi Shi'a. That AND a US boot on Maliki's neck would have kept him out of the Sunni's knickers, as well.

      Delete
    8. ps - Ask the Shi'a if they'll take that boot back on their neck today. We already know that their answer would be, "Hell yeah!"

      Delete
    9. Marxist - It is not I who failed to run the thought down the logic path. A far larger US force with the ability to act with impunity did not stop ISIS' earlier incarnation [AQI] from rising. Further, I would recommend that you look into the problem of Iranian influence on the Maliki regime and the restrictions US forces were forced to operate under after 2008 before pronouncing who's boot would be on who's neck.

      Delete
    10. The "surge" didn't stop AQI from "arising"? Who knew? Somebody better tell John McCain.

      ps - The guy with the biggest army in Iraq makes the rules (that's US). Anyone who believes otherwise is not only a fool, but a dead fool.

      Delete
    11. "The guy with the biggest army in Iraq makes the rules..."

      You might want to inform that Bush Administration who crafted the 2008 SOFA with a withdrawal date and a neutered US capability for 2008-2011.

      Delete
    12. Dubya didn't have to offer one. But since it expired in 2011, it's no longer relevant anyway. Obama is perfectly free to negotiate a new one, and has been perfectly free to craft something to deal with ISIS ever since (but has neglected to do).

      btw - Saddam Hussein didn't live up to the terms of the '91 Desert Storm ceasefire, either. Think it might be because our armed forces went home?

      ps - When was the last time Putin honored an agreement with Ukraine? Think about it.

      Delete
    13. "Obama is perfectly free to negotiate a new one, and has been perfectly free to craft something to deal with ISIS ever since (but has neglected to do)."

      As he did. And Maliki refused.

      Delete
    14. And now Maliki is GONE! Funny how that works, huh?

      Delete
    15. I'm not if it's funny or not...but now we're sending forces back into Iraq.

      Delete
    16. There's an old Italian saying...

      "Alexander never did what he said, and Caesar never said what he did."

      Delete
  9. I see little to no difference between Gruber's ACA scam, for some outrageous remuneration and the, so called, scientists who have prostituted themselves, in the same manner, on behalf of the anthropogenic Global Warming/Climate Change scam!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hey, they're not going to give you a research grant to tell them that you don't have to worry about global warming. They don't spend money on "non-threats" or the next great "peace".

      Delete
  10. I did type the following into the body of the blog post:

    Such rants spew forth from those the Left, the Right, and even the Center.

    Our political discourse today = "The squeaky wheel gets the oil."

    Tiresome.

    ReplyDelete
  11. The federal government has mandated that private citizens involuntarily purchase a commodity from a private entity. Yep, that's a problem. A problem of unconstitutionality. We're likely stuck with it though.....because once a subsidized entitlement is provided, good luck in rescinding it. Now precedence is set...so we can expect to see similar mandates in the future.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The ACA was adjudicated by SCOTUS.

      It was declared constitutional.

      Delete
    2. Remember that when the topic is the 2nd Amendment. Or union related. Or entitlement related.

      Delete
    3. That's the way the system works.
      The Constitution has to be interpreted.

      Of course, if it supports that ACA or abortion then the curt has to have the "activist judges" removed.
      Of course, if the court is sympathetic with gun loons then they are just upholding the Constitution.


      Delete
    4. Tired, partisan rhetoric just as employed by the left and the entitlement loons, when confronted with cases they disagree with.

      Unlike 2A cases, for example....I invite you to show where the Constitution allows [in the enumerated powers] the authority to mandate citizens purchase a commodity from a private entity.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. Promote the general welfare? Ring a bell?

      Now do Libertarians actually believe that every single freaking act
      must be explicitly permitted?
      Are we to look back to a period when health insurance was unheard of for the precedent in this matter?
      Do Libertarians even recognize precedent in matters they don't agree with?

      There is nothing sadder than some Libertarian starting to hold court on the Constitution and the history of American jurisprudence.
      Just sad.

      Delete
    7. "Now do Libertarians actually believe that every single freaking act
      must be explicitly permitted?"

      By the federal government? Yes. Absolutely. Explicitly permitted by the Constitution....you might remember this document as outlining the enumerated powers by which the federal government is authorized to act.

      States have the latitude via their Constitutions to act in accordance with the expectations and demands of their citizens. Should you desire the federal government to gain a power not currently enumerated, you can certainly pursue this via the Amendment process. What is so difficult to understand?

      So just to be clear, you support giving the federal government the power to mandate that private citizens purchase a private commodity....and then you have the laughable gall to attempt to lecture on precedence?

      The sadness is seeing a Statist have complete disregard for anything but political expedience.

      Delete
    8. "By the federal government? Yes. Absolutely. Explicitly permitted by the Constitution....you might remember this document as outlining the enumerated powers by which the federal government is authorized to act."

      Well said, CI. That shut Ducky's quacking face.

      Looks like he's down for the ten count, but then the constitution is not the progressives' strong suit.

      Delete
    9. (Yes, I pop up for every SC topic now...)

      Hey, Duckster, quick lesson. The ACA did pass... sorta. The SC only rules on portions of laws most of the time, not the WHOLE law. ACA can still be found unconstitutional for a different reason than last time.

      And they still had to change the law. The ACA, as it was, was not constitutional. For example:

      "The final Ruling on ObamaCare had a few implications ranging from ObamaCare being defined as a tax and not a mandate and a choice for States to Opt-Out of Medicaid Expansion." (source: http://obamacarefacts.com/supreme-court-obamacare/)

      Quick lesson on why:

      Congress can tax however they want, in any manner, for any purpose. They cannot tell people to buy stuff, though. So, instead of mandating health care coverage, they instead make it a tax. Change one.

      States opt-out. Basically, Congress cannot tell the states what to do. EVER. They can "blackmail" them with federal funds, but they cannot say "do this," unless it breaks Commerce laws- and that has many extensions.

      People can whine all they want about what the feds do- or aren't allowed to do- but the law IS the law. It is not completely malleable, and the SC cannot just pull a decision out of their ass. They have reasons. Bad reasons, twisted reasons, lawyer reasons- but reasons.

      And lastly: every act does have to have justification. From the Constitution, previous laws, or SC cases (which you call precedent).

      The General Welfare clause DOES have limits, believe it or not. I would know, I just studied the damn thing. It actually comes up in support of a DIFFERENT power- to power to tax and spend. Basically, Congress can tax people at will and spend it "for the general welfare." Which is limited. See South Dakota v. Dole.

      The clause also refers to a general limit that Congress must legislate for the general welfare, but it does NOT grant them power to do whatever they want. They can: tax, spend; regulate commerce; prevent discrimination (14th Amendment); preserve/use land; and that's about it, functionally. Minor stuff about copyright, postal service, military, treaties, etc; are also in there, but you can read Article I to see them all.

      All laws- ALL- have to fall under one of those powers. All powers not enumerated are reserved for the States (10th Amendment, so many SC cases).

      I say this for Ducky, but also for everyone else. I'm seeing more and more bloggers complaining about powers that have legal justification. No, I don't like them. No, they do not follow original intent. Yes, they are legal. Petition the states to announce an amendment to change that, because otherwise it will not happen. It cannot. Not without throwing away 200 years of legal practice.

      Whether or not that would be a good thing is up for debate.

      -Wildstar

      Delete
    10. So the process of defining what is Constitutional is iterative nd arbitrary.
      That's my point. And given the limits of language that can't change.

      The train wreck of a phrase called the 2nd amendment is a good example.
      One reasonable interpretation is that it grants the right to join a militia. Now folks like Silverfiddle and CI have their identity so defined by gun ownership that they are going to demand the removal of most all restrictions.
      I don't know where they stand on ownership of full auto or antitank equipment.

      And again, SCOTUS ruled that the mandate is not a tax. Your disagreement with the ruling means squat relative to its implementation.

      But we do have the general welfare clause which is about our only guide in a document written when insurance was virtually unknown.

      So we make decisions. If you are a Libertarian you make them without regard to an overall culture or community, the individual is completely sovereign.

      Now, let's get to the matter of congress doing whatever it wants. Clearly to anyone paying attention (and silverfiddle is in complete agreement here) they do whatever their financial handlers tell them to do.

      We can interpret the Constitution (and interpret, we must) as a remnant of Lockean philosophy or move out of the 18th century.

      Delete
    11. "That's my point. And given the limits of language that can't change."

      Wrong. Amend the Constitution. Period.

      "One reasonable interpretation is that it grants the right to join a militia."

      Nope. We have reams of text outlining the Founders philosophy on defense of community and self. We know exactly what they meant.

      "Now folks like Silverfiddle and CI have their identity so defined by gun ownership that they are going to demand the removal of most all restrictions."

      Isn't that cute. A textual tantrum. When an argument can't be won, the Statist turns petulant.

      I'll ask again: You support giving the federal government the power to mandate that private citizens purchase a private commodity?

      Delete
    12. You shoulda stayed down, Ducky. You just took another ugly beating.

      Must be punch drunk.

      And the Supremes have ruled that the 2nd Amendment is about self-defense, not militias, which was always the understanding of it going back to our nation's founding. It was a recent diaper-pissing liberal push to try to redefine that understanding.

      You lost. Sit down and shut up. We're tired of hearing you whine on about it. It is settled law now, just like the invented right to an abortion you lefties bow down and worship.

      Delete
    13. /hit head against desk.

      DUCKY. Please, for the love of everything, READ the news.

      "And again, SCOTUS ruled that the mandate is not a tax." Your words.

      From ABC news, second Google hit:

      "In a victory for President Obama, the Supreme Court decided to uphold his signature health care law's individual mandate in a split decision, upending speculation after hostile-seeming oral arguments in March that the justices would overturn the law. The mandate has been upheld as a tax, according to SCOTUSblog"

      Turns out the case can be found online and downloaded. To save you some trouble...

      "2. CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–A that the individual mandate is not a valid exercise of Congress’s power under the Commerce Clause and the Necessary and Proper Clause (my note: this is the 'general welfare clause.') . Pp. 16–30"

      "b)Nor can the individual mandate be sustained under the Necessary and Proper Clause as an integral part of the Affordable Care
      Act’s other reforms."

      "3.CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS concluded in Part III–B that the individual mandate must be construed as imposing a tax on those who do not have health insurance, if such a construction is reasonable."

      FROM THAT SAME CASE: "In our federal system, the National Government possesses only limited powers; the States and the people retain the remainder."

      "If no enumerated power authorizes Congress to pass a certain law, that law may not be enacted, even if it would not violate any of the express prohibitions in the Bill of Rights or elsewhere in the Constitution"

      There are many more relevant quotes, but you can find and read the case itself. I just searched "mandate" and read the areas around the word.

      Stop making this easy Duck.

      And if you would actually read a case, or even a portion of a case, you would see the interpretation is not "arbitrary." It is logical. The only part that is 'random' is the SC's decision to follow one case's precedent over another- and that is more "I like this law better" than "eyni mini miny mo."

      By the way, your comment that my disagreement means nothing is hilllaarrrious given which topic you picked on: gun rights. Let's see, HOW many times has the court banned gun bans? Let's see, DC's sticks out in my mind (if only for being my backyard).

      -Wildstar

      (ps, for anyone who says this is kinda useless... it is fun regardless, and a good exercise in debate.)

      Delete
  12. Michel Aflaq (et al) Ba'athist party was hatched in the halls of the Sorbonne, nurtured in Syria, and eventually became the party of a ruling elite that provided a bulwark against the aspirations of Iran. We deconstructed the strength of what was a counterweight against the Grand Ayatollah chain of command. (There are approximately twenty living Grand Ayatollah.) And with a sixty percent Shi'a majority in Iraq, we handed Iran quite a gift.

    But we have made monumental errors along the way - whether trying to parachute Chalabi in at the beginning (I could opine about his crimes on Iraqi soil, but I will not betray a confidence) or our total lack of understanding that an old man in Najf was a key to success of a nascent provisional government.

    *Sorry, AOW. I have just jumped in with a tired manner, and off track from the primary blog post, but commenting on another participant and his comment.

    Tammy

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well said. Not many understand the dynamics at play with regards to Dawa, Badr and ISCI....and the birth of Iranian influence in Iraq beginning in 2003.

      Delete
  13. LOL! Keep up the paranoid, petty, insecure ranting, cons. You're getting sent to bed come 2016. Babies need their sleepy time.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jersey, did the political whipping hurt you, or did you suffer a concussion when the whip struck you?

      Delete
    2. There won't be any more beer summits Jersey?

      Delete
    3. The GOP will have 24 seats in the senate up in 2016. Good luck with that.

      JMJ

      Delete
  14. THE Liar in Chief SAID: "No, I did not’ mislead The American People"

    The funny thing about this is the liberals here would rather accept being called stupid by Gruber than admit they got taken by him and the Obama administration in regards to Obamacare. You might remember not a single Republican voted for Obamacare and Gruber has now validated the rights criticism of the bill first then the law it became those on the right never bought into the B.S. they were putting out there so the stupid people he is talking about could only be those on the left who bought it hook, line, and sinker.

    ReplyDelete
  15. On last Sundays "Fox & Friends," network White House correspondent Ed Henry asked Obama about Jonathan Gruber and he (obama) said, that he had just heard about the ObamaCare architect in Australia. And the far left believed him! Haven’t we heard that line before? “ I just read about in then newspapers this morning” Or “I just heard it on the news this morning, like everybody else”!

    ReplyDelete


  16. Only 37 percent of Americans approve of Obamacare.

    On the first anniversary of the Obamacare , many Americans have lost whatever loving feeling they once had for the law, according to a new Gallup poll out Monday.

    According to the poll, 37 percent of Americans approve of the Affordable Care Act, which is one percentage point less than the previous low. That was in January of 2014, following a rollout plagued with issues. Fifty-five percent of Americans now say they disapprove of the law.

    The poll also found a dip in approval among non-whites, who are still the law's strongest supporters. At 56 percent, the non-white approval rate is below 60 percent for the first time.

    The poll comes just in time for the new enrollment period, which began on Saturday and goes through February. It reached 828 people by phone and had a margin of error of four points.
    Cli

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's because about another 30% want single payer.

      Delete
    2. Harlan Crabtree from TexasNovember 18, 2014 at 5:30:00 PM EST

      Ducky's here said: "That's because about another 30% want single payer."
      ------
      Liar.

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/179426/new-enrollment-period-starts-aca-approval.aspx

      Delete
  17. A new low for Obamacare? Oh Lordy, Ms. Clawdy tell me that it’s not true! Only 37 percent of Americans approve of Obamacare? As Obamacare enters its second year and all the people who didn’t have health insurance before may soon have to pay a penalty starting at $95 and it goes up based on how much you earn. Many Americans do know about the penalty, but millions of others could be in for a very shocking surprise when the Comrades in the administration assesses a fee on them that they didn’t even know was coming.

    I guess that the stupid liberal voters didn't help the Liar in Chief sell the program.

    Gee, could it be that they found out they've been lied to? And notice how the Libs are strangely silent about this.....
    It’s amazing that so many people did not know they were being lied to. I guess that they never heard that now infamous quote” If you like your Health Plan, you can KEEP your Health Plan” If you like your Doctor, you can KEEP your Doctor”

    Three cheers for the stupid trust that the LIBERALS, PROGRESSIVES, SOCIALISTS, COMMUNISTS, UNAMERICAN LEFT-WING RADICALS had or have for the Serial Liar! Next time they should read that book “Voting For Dummies” before they go to the polls.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm waiting for a Liberal Brother or one of those Hippy’s from the Occupy movement , who eats Tofu and smells like my pet Poodle and listens to Joan Baez, and John Lennon, pot smoking, and big on animal rights. to tell us all about how bad George Bush was. And how he screwed up on Bush's analysis and arguments against regulating carbon pollution, and undermined “global warming”!

    ReplyDelete
  19. Which is a higher approval rating Bush had at this time in his Presidency. And about triple that of Congress.

    The "You can Keep your Plan" baloney as many on the right know, was allowing you to keep your insurance plan IF it met the Affordable Health Care Act standards. Those who were denied had inferior plans. Some didn't cover Emergency Room visits or even certain diseases. How would that help our economy if the tax payers would have to continue to pick up the tab? You're willing to pay for those people. Doubtful.

    Rate for health plans have significantly slowed but the right wont be happy until they get us back to a time where insurance companies can once again deny treatment and watch a family member die right in front of us.

    Nice try, lapdog.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Go tell that to the pissed off people who lost their "inferior" plans.

      You need to update your red propaganda. 2015 prices increased an average of 5%

      Do you have an extra 5% in your flat paycheck? Most of us don't, and deductible are way up. Hope you got more money in the bank.

      http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2014/11/11/Obamacare-2015-Low-Premium-Increases-High-Deductibles

      The Obama economy is great for Wall Street but it is crushing Main Street.

      Now run along little Obama fangirl

      Delete
    2. SF, you are SO right. My insurance is totally screwed up and I don't mind saying I'm a little nervous about it all.....
      Insurance agents are retiring, and saying those who think this is a great help will find that, once they're really sick, they're in trouble they never guessed could happen.

      It makes me laugh when the left pulls out their ridiculous "The Right wants nobody to have health insurance" when the Right just wishes they'd taken this slow and thought about it and really made sure it would work before destroying the system.
      I wish they would just THINK.
      And I wish they'd consider Gruber's remarks...but they probably haven't even heard about them; the Left media's barely covering it at all...and the DAMNED LIE that Obama said the other day about Gruber ...
      it's like "I never knew Ayers" all over again, isn't it. So sad to have a president like this.

      Delete
    3. The average rate of increase of premiums before Obamacare was nearly 11%, so thanks for proving my point.

      Obama: "The fact that some adviser who never worked on our staff expressed an opinion that I completely disagree with in terms of the voters is no reflection on the actual process that was run."

      You guys need to cancel payment for your lunatic GOP Scandal of the Moth Club, lol!

      Delete
    4. Wrong, ding dong.

      There may have been a year, or perhaps a few, but no, that was not the average rate of increase. Just use your reason to think that one through.

      Delete
    5. Something else to consider, Lester:

      Approval for Obamacare is at a whopping 37%, while 56% disapprove of the convoluted, confusing law that the democrats wrote to fool "ignorant" voters like you.

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/179426/new-enrollment-period-starts-aca-approval.aspx

      The law has actually helped a handful of people, but the Democrats' big flub was imposing a 100% solution on a 5% problem.

      Delete
  20. About ObamaCare....

    A friend of mine -- she works but does not have a high income -- qualified for the subsidy the first time around: $20/month for health insurance. Yesterday, she got a notice in the mail: her premium, WITH SUBSIDY, will rise to $118/month on January 1, 2015..

    No way can my friend afford this rate hike! Her income for 2014 is lower than her income for 2013.

    How did this rate hike occur? Maybe because "You have to pass the bill to find out what's in it."

    What choice does she now have? Go on welfare and/or move to government-subsidized housing, I guess. Or else not have any health insurance coverage at all.

    My friend is protesting the rate hike. Let's see what happens now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent reply Silverfiddle, It's funny how a short honest reply like yours says more than a long drawn out stupid, moronic racist. un-informed rant. Like “THIS ONE”

      It’s no wonder that these left wing idiots are the reason this country is in such a mess.

      Delete
    2. Don,

      "This One" is an unpaid DNC propagandist, one more abused baby-momma getting bitch-slapped by her Big Daddy Gov but unable to quit him.

      Delete
    3. Again, as long as antitrust exempt, for profit insurers control the market there will be no way to control costs.
      The bill insures that for profit insurers are in control.

      Until we decide to start moving to single payer this isn't going to change.
      You can repeal the bill tomorrow and that increase won't change a bit.

      Delete
    4. Ducky,

      You get a few points for being partially correct. Remove the anti-trust exemptions (please note how almost every monopoly in our history was created by the government).

      For profit competition is the only way to keep prices rational.

      Single payer just makes us all equally-miserable (except for those who can exempt themselves from the system and pay for boutique care).

      Socialism is a failed ideology with nothing but grotesque failures in its wake, and it is an intellectually-spent force as well, but keep banging that drum! The leftwing statist progs needs propagandists like you to keep the nightmare alive.

      Delete
    5. Why don't we concentrate on what we agree on. An antitrust exempt medical insurance system is going to screw people raw.
      That's its nature.

      Now various permutations of single payer have been quite successful in other nations so it might be fruitful to explore the defect in America that you imagine would make it unfeasible.

      As for monopolies. Most of the robber barons built them in an era with no restrictions and what few there were succumbed to bribery.
      In other words, there was no barrier to their formation. Libertarianism failed miserably for all but a few.

      Delete
    6. Post-Toqueville era, this nation was never libertarian, so I don't know what you mean by your senile rant. It was and still is crony craptialist, so maybe that's what you meant to say.

      On the other hand, socialism had a historical track record of starvation, murder and mayhem that we can look to.

      You also fail to recognize that states, to one degree or another depending on the state, do enforce anti-trust and otherwise regulate the insurance industry, so saying they are completely antitrust exempt is false and deceptive, like 99.99% of the propaganda you subject us to daily.

      Delete
    7. Yadda,yadda,yadda and always failing to realze that socialism is an economic system first.

      In countries of political stability where it has advanced there have been benefits which should be noted.

      I assume you attribute events like the Ukrainian famine (AN ETHNIC GENOCIDE) to an economic system rather than authoritarian government.
      You aren't completely wrong but you're shallow.
      Laissez-faire capitalism has a few skeletons.

      Delete
    8. Should be noted? Then note them!

      Your quacking would carry some weight if you could produce any statements of mine that displayed the absolutism you allege.

      Economies and government form a symbiotic relationship. I have never said otherwise.

      I refer you back to my "false and deceptive" comment above.

      Delete

  21. To me, what is really scary about these liberal attacks is that they are ALL communist rants made by Parasites and Maggots, and other escapees from the progressives cave

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete

  22. The obama quote that sums up his whole presidency - "I never heard about this" It should be his theme song!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. you forgot "....and it's just not true! I never knew Ayers and Gruber wasn't even on staff!" brother

      Delete
  23. US DEBT CLOCK:

    United States National Debt $17,957,377,559,525.87
    United States National Debt Per Person $56,137.60
    United States National Debt Per Household $145,396.38
    Total US Unfunded Liabilities $123,316,962,917,958.25
    Social Security Unfunded Liability $15,118,371,160,225.93
    Medicare Unfunded Liability $79,047,332,889,085.77
    Prescription Drug Unfunded Liability $19,947,845,075,952.61
    National Healthcare Unfunded Liability $9,203,413,792,693.93
    Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Person $385,508.30
    Total US Unfunded Liabilities Per Household $998,466.50
    United States Population 319,881,473

    Is Medicare an example of "single payer"?

    ReplyDelete
  24. 'It isn't crap or mindless pap

    That's featured here today, I say
'
    Tis wind from those who've sinned

    That's set alight to show the way.



    'Tis better that we venture thus

    Upon a foolish lark

    Than tap away the livelong day

    Cursing at the dark.



    The Black Knight picked to rule us

    Has befouled all Dee Cee

    Oozing pus, he cannot fool us

    Yet from him we can't shake free.



    And so to keep the chill at bay

    Our flatulence we light

    'Tis but one way that spirits gay

    Endure the Endless night.
    


    ~ FreeThinke

    ReplyDelete

  25. 'The North Ship'

    I saw three ships go sailing by,
    Over the sea, the lifting sea,
    And the wind rose in the morning sky,
    And one was rigged for a long journey.

    The first ship turned towards the west,
    Over the sea, the running sea,
    And by the wind was all possessed
    And carried to a rich country.

    The second ship turned towards the east,
    Over the sea, the quaking sea,
    And the wind hunted it like a beast
    To anchor in captivity.

    The third ship drove towards the north,
    Over the sea, the darkening sea,
    But no breath of wind came forth,
    And the decks shone frostily.

    The northern sky rose high and black
    Over the proud unfruitful sea,
    East and west the ships came back
    Happily or unhappily:

    But the third went wide and far
    Into an unforgiving sea
    Under a fire-spilling star,
    And it was rigged for a long journey.

    Philip Larkin

    ReplyDelete
  26. Well, what else is new. The left has declared war on America and has demonstrated it will say and do anything. Wait until the leftist boobs figure out that they are their own enemy when it all comes crashing down. THAT will be hilarious.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Just look at the PR costs incurred to coax Americans to buy a product they do not trust.

    http://thepublicnotice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/Messaging-on-Administrations-Announcement-of-8-Million-Obamacare-Enrollees.pdf

    ReplyDelete

We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective