The Not So Shutdown Thread

Time to speed things up folks. Feel free to forward anything you desire.



  1. This is fun 🙂

  2. As do the people….

    As Mathius (I believe) keeps saying…there was an election. You lost. You don’t get to now throw a temper tantrum and shut down the government demanding the delay of a duly enacted law (upheld by SCOTUS to boot). That’s not negotiation, that’s hostage taking.

    Buck, I didn’t lose at all because I didn’t vote for any of these idiots. In reality, Obamacare does not affect me at all. With that said, I don’t care what Obamacare does, you can have it!

    Yes, it’s a law, but that don’t mean it can’t be revisited, as many laws frequently are. Bad laws can and should be changed. Can you answer D13’s questions on the exemptions?

    • When did I ever give Obama a pass on this issue (the exemptions)? But that’s not the issue at the moment.

      Of course you can revisit a law — in fact, you most certainly should revisit every law. But that’s not what’s happening here. The House tried revisiting the law — how many times have they voted now to defund Obamacare? How successful were these attempts? Seriously, its time to move on and get over it. The House is throwing a temper tantrum – nothing more, nothing less.

      • Maybe the House is feeling the heat from THE PEOPLE THEY REPRESENT now. We have to pass it to know what in it. Well….we really didn’t pass it we reconciliated it through and suddenly it was law. Now that people have read it and more importantly have sticker shock from it…it’s absolutely the House’s right to throw a tantrum….You better hope they even fund it for you..that IS THEIR PEROGATIVE to fund or not fund a bill.

        • Interestingly enough my boss just made an extremely good point. By the way, my boss cannot be described as a liberal by any stretch of the imagination.

          His argument — as I’ve said — the House is doing nothing more than throwing a temper tantrum. You don’t like Obamacare, great! Get out there, convince people to vote for the GOP in the next election, take control of the Senate and Presidency, then repeal the damn thing.

          • I’ll side with Anita and say that the House Repubs are just listening to their constituents. Isn’t that what they are supposed to do?

            • No, they are being babies.

              I’m sure some are feeling tremendous heat and pressure from their constituents and fearful of a primary challenge from an even further-right tea partier. I’m not even going to get into how gerrymandering has played a role in this. But it is also the job of the Representative to talk to his constituents; explain that, yes, you agree Obamacare should be repealed and discuss ways of increasing like-minded representation in the House and Senate to accomplish this task, and not to hold the entire government hostage to demand Obamacare’s defunding when you know that such a demand is a complete non-starter.

              • The GOP went from defunding Obamacare down to a one year delay on the individual mandate. Any claim that the GOP won’t budge is hogshit. While I personnally don’t care if the govt is open or not, the Liberal media has gotten their minions believing in fairy tales again, just the the Global Warming fraud. The voters voted for a divided Congress and that is what they are getting.

                Theydon’t need a higher debt limit, they need to shrink their expenditures. Start by disbanding the EPA and cut the DHS by 3/4’s and the debt ceiling can stay put. Niether side will recommend this, they both want big govt. This whole thing is just drama to help the news get better ratings, in a month it will all be just fine!

                As a note, if Todd is having shorter winters, I find it odd that global warming only seems to affect Liberals, because our conservative winters are normal, just like the other 3 seasons. BWAHAHAHA 🙂

              • Just A Citizen says:


                Several times today you have used the “complete defunding of Obamacare” as your argument.

                Did you miss the part where the GOP House withdrew that demand in only a few days and replaced it with a “DELAY of ONE YEAR”????

                Exactly what was done for those special groups, er friends, er lobbyists, er….people by Mr. Obama personally.

                Reid and Obama could have easily agreed to a ONE YEAR extension of the Mandate and the GOP would have accepted it.

              • Mathius™ says:

                Yes, yes. Delay it one year, and we’ll extend the debt ceiling two months.

                Then what? How does this play out in your head?

              • Ok sure, and then next year we can delay it again….and so on and so forth….

                sounds like a pretty good compromise to me!

              • Huckster…..please…get over Gerrymandering…….when the Dems are in control they redo district lines all the time… is not a republican phenomena… happens in Texas every ten years along with census reports… happens in the same manner in almost every state that I know… is happening in Colorado as we speak… gerrymandering is nothing new or exciting. It is only going to get worse.

              • Oh crap…please insert a B in place of my H……damn keyboard does not read my mind.

              • Right, because those gerrymandered district maps are only because of the census reports.

                Hey Colonel, I got a bridge to sell ya if you’re interested! (See, maybe huckster was correct)

              • Mathius™ says:

                please…get over Gerrymandering…….when the Dems are in control they redo district lines all the time

                I don’t think anyone is suggesting that it’s new or even that it’s isolated to the Red Shirts. But just that it’s a bad thing which fosters political polarization and extremism.

                In general, it’s just a bad thing and we should get rid of it.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            You mean like the Dems did in Wisconsin when they didn’t like what the MAJORITY passed and the Gov signed???

            Like that????

            • I believe at the time I had applauded their efforts but fully admitted there was nothing that could be done to stop it. The difference is that the Dems didn’t actively work to shut down the federal gov’t for not getting their way.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                You are splitting hairs once again.

                They most certainly shut down part of the Govt…that being the LEGISLATIVE branch.

                They most certainly organized huge TANTRUM DEMONSTRATIONS by GOVT EMPLOYEES who were NOT AT WORK which of course effectively shut down the executive branch, or portions thereof.

                Seems to me you guys are rationalizing one set of tantrums while condemning another.

              • Not rationalizing at all. You say ‘splitting hairs’ but there remains a huge difference between what the Dems did in Wisconsin and what the GOP is doing now.

                I’m not going to rehash Wisconsin all over again.

                Though based on your post I will walk away with a smile as it appears you agree with me – the GOP is currently throwing a huge TANTRUM!

              • Actually what you said or rather asked was, not your exact words but close enough-if one believes something is going to happen that is really bad for the people shouldn’t we do everything we can to stop them? I said NO-they should follow our system of government, which is exactly what the republicans are doing. While the dems. were saying to hell with the system, which is the exact same thing you are saying now. Like it or not the house is controlled by the republicans. Talking about ethics-well I don’t think any of us will ever agree on which party is worse.

    • Correct me if I am wrong but did not the Democrats lose the House after passing Obamcare.Is it at all possible that was the plebiscite?

      Does that count as losing an election?

      Didn’t the SC rule on the tax aspect which the were not asked about since we were guaranteed that this was not tax?

      • Correct me if I am wrong but did not the Democrats lose the House after passing Obamcare.Is it at all possible that was the plebiscite?

        Does that count as losing an election?

        Yes Stephen, but that was 2010.

        In 2012, Obama won reelection and the Dems gained seats in the House and Senate.

        I would call that a plebiscite, as Romney’s and the GOP’s main issue was the repeal of ObamaCare.

  3. Mathius™ says:
    October 10, 2013 at 11:01 am (Edit)
    That’s good.

    I’m sure lots of black people feel the same way.

    They’ll be relieved to know that you’re over the whole thing and have moved on.

    And, for what it’s worth, I don’t think most black people African-Americans are really that concerned about slavery so much as subtle and overt racism which is still quite prevalent in America today.* Not being African-American, however, I can’t speak with much authority on that particular mater.

    *Do you really need a citation for this, or are you going to contend that America isn’t racist anymore?

    Over here Mathius, I really don’t concern myself with what other people feel, it’s none of my business. As far as racism, yes there is quite alot of it, and quite alot of it is coming from blacks, just as much if not more than whites. Sadly, most Liberals ignore this fact because it don’t fit into their talking points 🙂

    • Mathius™ says:

      As far as racism, yes there is quite alot of it, and quite alot of it is coming from blacks, just as much if not more than whites.

      Perhaps. I can’t support or reject this assertion. I do know that the African American community voted for Obama by something like 90%+, and that wasn’t due entirely to his policy positions, I know.

      But here’s the thing. Racism is bad in whatever form. African Americans being racist is bad. Caucasians being racist is bad. In whatever incarnation. Bad. BUT, the harm done by a minority (12% of the population, if I recall correctly) which controls a tiny fraction of the wealth and power in this country being racist is not nearly as bad / dangerous as (as Black Flag likes to say) the Hedgemonic Power being racist.

      Put another way, let’s say you have a misbehaving dog. If it’s a shih tzu, it doesn’t matter that he’s jumping on people – there’s only so much harm that can come of it. If it’s a 180 lb rottweiler, that’s a very different story, no?

      As for there being “alot” of racism, well..

  4. I found this article a lot of fun to read-the last paragraph , I personally think the democrats might need to take to heart.

    Ten Ways Republican s Are Giving President Obama A Taste Of His Own Alinsky

    The Republican members of Congress are giving President Obama a real taste of being on the receiving end of the radical community organizing tactics pioneered by Saul Alinsky. And the president — who many conservatives and even some non-partisan biographers believe has long admired and emulated Alinsky’s methods — doesn’t seem to like it one bit.

    Alinsky, a Chicago-based community organizer whose followers hired and trained a young Barack Obama in community organizing, authored a landmark handbook, Rules for Radicals, a year before his 1972 death. The book opens with a blunt statement on who the book is written for:
    Federal Government Begins First Shutdown In 17 Years Janet Novack Janet Novack Forbes Staff
    Dear President Obama: You’re No Saul Alinsky Ralph Benko Ralph Benko Contributor
    New Rules for Radicals — A Blog Series Giovanni Rodriguez Giovanni Rodriguez Contributor

    “The Prince was written by Machiavelli for the Haves on how to hold power,” reads the book. “Rules for Radicals is written for the Have-Nots on how to take it away.”

    In an American government where Republicans hold only the House of Representatives while the Democrats hold the Senate and the massive power of the Presidency, there’s not much question as to which party makes up the political “Have-Nots.”

    Now key GOP members like Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Senator Mike Lee (R-Utah) and Representative Tom Graves (R-Georgia) seem to be taking Alinsky’s advice for Have-Nots to heart. Their battle with the Democrat Haves is taking on a tint that would make old Saul proud.

    Here are ten quotes from Rules for Radicals that appear to have materially influenced the Republican Congressional anti-Obamacare playbook:

    1. “No politician can sit on a hot issue if you make it hot enough.”

    Many observers believed that the one-two punch of the 2012 Supreme Court ruling that upheld the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act, followed by the President’s comfortable victory in last November’s election, meant that Obamacare would in fact become “settled law.” But the President seems not to have anticipated that legislative legitimacy might not translate into political pacifism by his opponents, and Republicans from the Tea Party Caucus have most certainly chosen to bring the heat on the healthcare debate.

    2. “If by losing in a certain action he can get more members than by winning, then victory lies in losing and he will lose.”

    Conventional wisdom in Washington last week was that Ted Cruz’s overnight anti-Obamacare screed was a futile waste of time. But Cruz seems to have been burning the midnight oil more than on just the evening he gave the speech – perhaps reading Rules for Radicals. His performance garnered rave reviews from rank and file Republicans and appears to have plopped the Senator right at the front of the GOP presidential field.

    3. “Great dangers always accompany great opportunities. The possibility of destruction is always implicit in the act of creation.”

    Nearly every pundit’s take on the government shutdown has been that the GOP is bringing enormous risks on itself by its determination not to blink in this confrontation with the Democrats. That analysis is always delivered in a tone of admonishment – “These ideologues…these radicals…are so blindly blah blah blah that they’re willing to risk blah blah blah…”. And apparently, they are — just as Alinsky said they must be.

    4. “The ninth rule of the ethics of means and ends is that any effective means is automatically judged by the opposition as being unethical.”

    Alinsky took great pains to dissect the ethics of radical action, possessing a great deal of self-awareness as to how he was perceived by his opposition. Leaders of the anti-Obamacare rebellion seem to be well aware they’d be accused of the lowest perfidy and general amorality, and they seem quite unwilling to let it bother them.

    5. “The job of the organizer is to maneuver and bait the establishment so that it will publicly attack him as a ‘dangerous enemy.’ “

    How better to build a movement than to be denounced as a dangerous enemy for embracing a gut-level truth for a large segment of the population? Alinsky often fought against the race prejudice that was just such a truth for most of the residents of the communities in which he worked. The Obamacare rebels, on the other hand, are being denounced as dangerous enemies for fighting against a program they see as causing gut-level fear for a large swath of downwardly-mobile middle class Americans. And the denunciations are clearly fueling further rebellion.

    6. “If your function is to attack apathy and get people to participate it is necessary to attack the prevailing patterns of organized living in the community. The first step in community organization is community disorganization.”

    While many commentators have either gloated over or lamented a “civil war within the GOP,” Alinsky makes the point that to build a revolutionary machine, the routine, the status quo, must first be interrupted and then overturned. By any measure, that process seems to have begun within the Republican party.

    7. “People hunger for drama and adventure, for a breath of life in a dreary, drab existence.”

    Alinsky knew that asymmetric warfare of the sort Have-Nots are compelled to wage against Haves requires capturing people’s attention. The Obamacare rebellion leaders have done an excellent job of creating breathless drama (at least judging by the multiple cable news networks telecasting live from Washington DC well into the wee hours of the morning of the shutdown).

    8. “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.”

    Alinsky loved to ridicule his opponents, noting that “It is almost impossible to counterattack ridicule. Also, it infuriates the opposition, who then react to your advantage.” The oft-quoted line from Representative Nancy Pelosi (D-California) “We have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it,” is exactly the kind of fodder for ridicule that Alinsky would have loved, and the GOP has put it to great use.

    9. “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.”

    Alinsky noted that “If your people are not having a ball doing it, there is something very wrong with the tactic.” Rachel Maddow noted sourly on her show that the shutdown “is both fun and ideologically correct for Republicans.” Apparently so, and therefore good organizing.

    10. “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”

    Perhaps Alinsky’s single most famous line of advice, by which he recommended putting a single face on the enemy and making the protest very much about that individual. The
    GOP has unquestionably used this tactic against the community organizer himself, making President Obama the target for their movement’s deep resentment of the Affordable Care Act. He, in turn, has played right into their hands, wrapping himself ever-tighter in the mantle of his “signature accomplishment,” as all pundits refer to it.

    The Real Action

    Alinsky gleefully noted that “The real action is in the enemy’s reaction.” Watching the grim-faced Senator Harry Reid (D-Nevada) proclaim that the members of the Republican House caucus have “lost their minds” must have the very liberal Alinsky simultaneously spinning and laughing in his grave as his playbook is used against his political heirs, thereby demonstrating its effectiveness.

    The radical sauce for the goose is radical sauce for the gander. One last note for Republican leaders, though – Alinsky also wrote that “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Turns out moderation in all things is good – even radicalism.

  5. T-Ray,
    Bring forward…

    I suggest the GOP withdraw any furlough pay for federal works should the democrats not come to the table and negotiate a debt ceiling and budget agreement by Oct. 16.

    First of all, I think the House and Senate would have to pass this and Obama sign it to become law. Good Luck!

    Since most federal workers are unionized and most unions back the democrats, this applies pain to Obama’s supporters.

    So you believe in retaliation against your opponents supporters?

    How is this going to help the GOP?

    Are you really that naive??

    • To pay furloughed workers for not working will require positive action. To not pay them requires no action at all.

      Todd, sadly your response is what I expected. Instead of condemning Obama’s actions that have hurt individuals and private businesses and saying that two wrongs do not make a right, you condemn me for the suggestion. I have yet to hear any of the liberals on this site condemn Obama’s actions with respect to the closure of monuments, parks, cemeteries, and private businesses and homes contained therein. I must take your silence to mean that you agree with his actions. Thus to condemn me for my suggestion is being hypocritical.

      • T-Ray,
        First, the House has already unanimously passed a bill to pay furloughed workers.

        Republican’s in the Senate are holding it up.

        Second, you’re still mixed up about who is causing the shutdown. It’s the House GOP that won’t bring a clean CR up for a vote.

        To continue to blame Obama for the shutdown shows either your lack of understanding of the issues or your desperation to defend the GOP.

        • By your silence, I can assume you support the tactics the President is using. Yet you claim to support the little guy despite the fact that it precisely the little guy Obama is hurting. More hypocrisy.

          • T-Ray,
            By my silence? I’m not posting enough here?

            I do support the President in not giving in to the threats by the House GOP.

            What about all the government workers that are furloughed? Do you care about them and their families?
            You’re the one who wants to withhold their pay just because you think they’re all Obama supporters.

            How’s that for hypocrisy?

            If you’re so worried about the individuals and private businesses and the closure of monuments, parks, cemeteries, and private businesses and homes contained therein, why don’t you condemn the tactics the House GOP is using to shutdown the government?

            Let’s review how we got to a government shutdown:

            * For the past 6 months, there have been negotiations over the budget.

            * During this time, the democratic chair of the Senate Budget Committee has tried 18 times to go to a conference committee to work out dramatic differences between the Senate budget and the House budget. Senate and House Republicans have objected, 18 times.

            * Late this summer, Reid and Boehner agreed to a continuing resolution that funds the government at sequestration levels, which was what the House GOP was demanding.

            * The House GOP added the defunding of ObamaCare to the continuing resolution on Sept 20.

            So how’s that for ‘good faith” negotiating? The House GOP got the agreement they wanted, and then they decided to try for more.

            The House GOP has voted more than 40 times to defund or otherwise get rid of ObamaCare. But just because they control the House doesn’t mean they get their way. The Senate has to agree, and the President has to agree, or else the House and Senate have to over-ride a veto.

            The GOP controls one part of the three parts that have to agree. They don’t get to decide unilaterally what laws get passed.

            On the flip side, there are votes in the House and Senate to pass a “clean” CR, but Boehner won’t bring it up for a vote.

            There may also be votes for a “clean” bill to raise the debt ceiling, but I haven’t seen anything decisive on that.

            So who’s being hypocritical?


              • T-Ray,
                Yes I do. Can’t you read:

                I do support the President in not giving in to the threats by the House GOP.

                I support it because the House GOP has forced a government shutdown, and these are all government run entities that by law have to be closed.

                If Obama didn’t do that, you’d be screaming that he’s breaking the law.

                I’ve answered all (or at least most) of your questions.

                Now it’s your turn to go back and answer all my questions.

  6. Breaking News:

    Huge victory for the citizens of Detroit and SE Mich

    28 years in the pen for Kwame Kilpatrick! They are celebrating in the D right now!

  7. Colonel,
    Bringing forward…

    This stuff the Dems put out about “hostage” issues is no different than Obama holding hostage the same issue by saying unless it is all there I will not negotiate. You have even said in the past, in order to negotiate there has to be give and take. Ok…….Fund the government and let the individual mandate take the same year off that big business, labor, and everyone else has. I see this as negotiation.

    Yep – except you’re missing one part of the current process. The House and Senate have been negotiating for the last few months. In late Summer, Reid and Boehner agreed to a CR at the post-sequestration level – which is what the GOP wanted.

    So after the GOP got their way, your boy Ted Crazy whipped the House Tea Party members into a frenzy and got Boehner to add the part about defunding ObamaCare on Sept 20 – ten days before the deadline.

    In order to negotiation Colonel, you have to have give and take, but you also have to integrity and people who will stick to agreements.

    The House GOP has “moved the goal posts” at the last minute. You don’t negotiate with people like that.

    Get it??

    Absent this, the Repubs say, ok fine, here are individual bills to fund the government….one by one….Reid says, no sir…it is all or nothing and the individual bills sit on Reid’s desk and Obama threatens veto if something comes through with out the individual mandate. So who is holding who hostage?

    ObamaCare changes were a “last minute add” by the House GOP. You don’t negotiate with people like that.

    The House GOP thought they had the upper hand and could push Obama around. Obama has now called their bluff and they left holding a “Ten High” hand.

    Not because the people want it…

    Nope – you’re wrong. The people are getting more and more sick of the GOP antics and their fear-mongering predictions that don’t come true. It’s not the media – it’s YOU.

    I ask both you and Charlie ( I asked this of Mathius but if he answered I did not see it ).

    Mathius answered part of this, and the rest is just more right-wing fear-mongering and lying.

    Please provide links to back up all you statements about the an “individual mandate exemptions”…

    …because they are all gross exaggerations or out-right lies.

    One other thing that I think you should be aware of,,,,,and I am sure that I will hear the word ANARCHIST…LAW BREAKER………beware of the ground support…..the very quiet ground support that is swelling. IT is much larger than you think. Case in point, we showed up at these monuments with arms in the cars….we did not carry them on our person….but I will tell you this….the first time a weapon is pulled on an unarmed individual exercising his right to access of public property….. it will be chaotic and the police know this. Most of the police I have encountered, agree with us….and stand aside or leave when we get there.

    I don’t have a problem with this. But will you accept responsibility for any damages/costs that occur because you removed the barricades? Either while you’re there or after you leave? You opened the monument – now you have to manage it until the NPS returns…

    Do you not see why this is beginning to happen….you laugh and you scoff but when inequities, the very things you and Charlie complain about, happen as a result of Progressive thinking….you turn the other cheek, or worse, bury your head in the sand,

    This is not the result of “progressive thinking”. It’s the result of GOP over-confidence.

    Get your head out of the sand.

    I ask this one question……………..on Obamacare………..and the Progressive movement of shutting down the government themselves……………….

    It’s the CONSERVATIVE Tea Party movement that’s shutting down the government. Liberals love government – we would never shut it down.

    One Question………………why is it FAIR AND EQUITABLE… give the exemptions to the above and not to the country as a whole?

    Gosh Colonel, you guys usually don’t like the word “FAIR”. Too subjective…

    But the answer is because they have better lobbyists. That’s the way the USA works. You don’t seem to mind when it favors you.

    • You don’t seem to mind when it favors you.

      THat works both ways Todd. I didn’t hear anything when the Democrat controlled HoR passed Obamacare without a single Republican vote, but listen to all the whining now that the Republican controlled HoR want’s to change Obamacare. Sounds hypocritical to me.

      • You seem to forget that it isn’t just about controlling the House — there is also the Senate and the Presidency.

        If the GOP controlled the House and Senate (and the Presidency, or alternatively controlled the House and Senate with sufficient margins to override a veto), Obamacare would be repealed. But guess what? The GOP doesn’t have the votes so instead of ginning up support for their cause and working towards gaining the majority needed to repeal Obamacare, they self-destruct and decide to take the country with them.

      • Mathius™ says:

        They won’t to change it, they want to kill / neuter it.

        But, regardless, they don’t have the numbers to effect their change so they’re throwing a temper tantrum and shutting the whole government down unless we pretend they do have the numbers.

        They’re trying to override democracy by holding a gun to the economy.

        If they are so desperate to kill ObamaCare™, and if so many people really hated it, they’d find the legislative support they needed. But they don’t, and they can’t, so the Red Shirts are just having a hissy fit.

    • What I LOVE most about this right wing “debate” on the exemptions is the fact they are literally arguing that it’s not fair to have exemptions for friends of Obama. I agree! No exemptions, ever … and that would be called single payer … and can you imagine how they’d crap their pants over that? Everybody gets the same healthcare unless you opt to pay for it privately. What’s wrong with that? Right, nothing. Absolutely nothing. Oh, wait, I have to move over for all the sick UK and Canadian nationals who are busting down the doors to get our so much better private health care … yeah, right.

  8. Just A Citizen says:

    You heard it hear first, three years ago. Apparently the Press is just starting to realize it:

    “But after speaking to 30 veteran Washington journalists to prepare a Committee to Protect Journalists report, Downie said he was persuaded that concerns about lack of government transparency are legitimate. Those interviewed, he wrote, “could not remember any precedent” to the Obama administration’s aggressive crackdown on leaks and efforts to control information. “

  9. Mathius™ says:

    Can I burn down your house?


    Just the 2nd floor?




    Let’s talk about what I can burn down.



    • Hey there’s a train up ahead can we stop?


      Well can we turn so we dont crash?


      How about you unlock the doors so I can get out


      Lets talk about not crashing into a train


      You arent compromising

      • 🙂

      • Mathius™ says:

        100% True story:

        I produce a daily report for work. One day my boss’s boss comes up to me and tells me to add a column to the data. No problem, right?

        Mathius: Sure, I can do that, but there isn’t a lot of room – do you mind if I shrink the font size? I know in the past this has been an issue for you.

        Boss: No.

        Mathius: Ok, well can I drop a different column?

        Boss: No.

        Mathius: How about splitting it onto two pages?

        Boss: No.

        Mathius: Using a larger paper size (11×17 instead of 8 1/2 x 11)?

        Boss: No.

        Mathius: Different font?

        Boss: No.

        Mathius: Reduced margins?

        Boss: No.

        Mathius: Creative rearranging of the data?

        Boss: No.

        Mathius: […]


        Mathius: [Punches boss in the face*]

        *this part may not have actually occurred.

  10. Conspiracy theory,,,

    NSA snoops around and has everyone’s private info.

    Tons of people are balking at signing up for OCare.

    Ainsley Earhart from Fox tried to log on using her own name…in a live shot..someone had already used her name and she was told she needed to come up with a new name, That had her concerned, as it would concern me’s her name..and it’s not a common name.

    Is someone planting names to the rolls to make it look like it’s succeeding? Because I’ve also heard that once you get into the website you cannot cancel your account..

    This is just my little conspiracy..don’t accuse me of reading too much Faux News please.

  11. At Todd, I will go back and read, but I do not think I said anything about individual mandate exemptions EXCEPT Nancy Pelosi’s district…..however, I will get those links to that specific issue. But you, or no one, has answered my question….why not treat individuals the same as government employees, big business, and labor unions.

    It really has a simple answer….because the individuals do not have the power? Why are WE…you and I….treated differently?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      ALTRUISM my Texican friend, it is ALTRUISM.

      The sacrifice of the some for the good of the many.

      And of course, those in power get to decide WHO is the some and WHO is the many.

    • Colonel,
      To clarify – I would like to see your sources for these statements:

      Justify why there should be an individual mandate and all of Congress, and the POTUS, is exempt including the staff and their families?

      Justify why there should be an individual mandate when all of big business is exempt?

      Justify why there is an individual mandate when labor unions are exempt?

      Justify why, in Nancy Pelosi’s district, why there are individual waivers for her donors? Why does not the media report this? Because it is complicit with the fallacy.

      Why is the largest employer in all of the United States….exempt?

      …because they are all gross exaggerations or out-right lies.

  12. Just A Citizen says:


    Gerrymandering is not linked to increasing radicalism in a political party.

    It can be tied to favoring a Party. How that manifests itself depends on the political tendencies of the Party members in those districts and states.

    Do you think Gerrymandering is the Reason the Progressives gained control over the Dem Party??

    • Gerrymandering is a heavily used tactic by the democrats here in CA. What is has resulted in is total one sided government with exceedingly strong union influence well beyond there actual population. It is a door that swings both ways.

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    You resident left wingers have to explain this to me.

    “It’s the CONSERVATIVE Tea Party movement that’s shutting down the government. Liberals love government – we would never shut it down.”

    The other day you are arguing that the Tea Party was astro turf and it was shrinking and becoming irrelevant.

    This past election you laughed over how FEW Tea Party supported candidates won.

    The Tea Party candidates are a minority that is holding us hostage you claim.

    Well if the Tea Party “conservatives” are few in number, losing elections due to unpopularity, then how in hell did they manage to get the House Republicans to refuse to pass a CR??

    Why would Boehner be afraid of a “minority” of radicals who don’t matter and are nothing but a laughing stock???

    Oh, and not matter what you claim I have never seen a House Member get all worked up over what some Senator (Cruz) was saying or doing. Unless of course they AGREE with him/her.

    • We’ll see in 2014, my super patriotic friend … you’ll continue to lose seats and by 2016, you’ll be kissed goodbye … those 30 idealogues will be all that’s left of your party 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I don’t have any seats to lose. When are you going to realize that?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        I forgot……….. you did NOT answer the questions. To hard??

        • It’s “too” hard, JAC … come on, now.

          Your party … need I be more specific or are you really going to try and bullshit about being a libertarian when push comes to shove (elections)? 🙂

      • I might just bet you a beer on that. last time out with Gingrich, they picked up two seats. It is like my theory of Guilliani and Christie. People my not agree with you but they will vote for you based on the perception that you stand for what you say.

        Of course it doesn’t take long for you to sell out (the Republican House under Delay) but what else is new?

        • These whackjobs are killing the GOP … it’s exactly what the WH is banking on. And I can’t wait to see what they do to Christie when he announces .. need an example? Look at what they did to Rudi G …

          • I think Christie should stay on message. The comment, “you have to win to change anything” was pretty good. I am not particularly crazy about the guy but he is committed and does not back down (an admitted weakness and strength). I hate spineless.

    • JAC,

      The other day you are arguing that the Tea Party was astro turf and it was shrinking and becoming irrelevant.

      Yes, it is astro-turf. Why does that matter?

      Yes, I think it is shrinking.

      I don’t necessarily think it has become irrelevant – yet. I don’t think I implied that.

      Well if the Tea Party “conservatives” are few in number, losing elections due to unpopularity, then how in hell did they manage to get the House Republicans to refuse to pass a CR??

      Because they make a lot of noise, are very passionate about what they believe, and they vote. I haven’t seen any numbers, but I’ll bet Tea Partiers vote in pretty high peercentages.

      And because of gerrymandering, many Republicans are in very conservative districts. They don’t have to worry about the general election – they have to worry about a primary challenge from a more conservative candidate.

      Why would Boehner be afraid of a “minority” of radicals who don’t matter and are nothing but a laughing stock???

      Because they are the loudest voice in the Republican caucus, they could potentially threaten his speakership.

      Oh, and not matter what you claim I have never seen a House Member get all worked up over what some Senator (Cruz) was saying or doing. Unless of course they AGREE with him/her.

      I’ve seen lots of reports about Cruz lobbying GOP House members. I wasn’t there to witness it personally, but I doubt you were there either…

      Overall, they’re a small part of the overall electorate, but they have disproportionate power on the conservative side of the political spectrum.

      • We went through this the other night. The TP represents over 20% of the population, equal to or greater than those that identify as liberals. Remember, during the Revolution the country was about equally split between Patriots, Tories, and I don’t give damn. Small vocal groups can change history.

        • Yes, small vocal groups can change history.

          Doesn’t mean they should.

          And it doesn’t mean we have to or should listen to them.

  14. Just A Citizen says:


    “Though based on your post I will walk away with a smile as it appears you agree with me – the GOP is currently throwing a huge TANTRUM!”

    Yes, it is a Tantrum of sorts if you consider the minority using its few legislative and/or procedural tools as a tantrum.

    Just like the filibuster. When it works for you it is protecting the minority from tyranny of the majority. When it works against you it is a TANTRUM.

    I do think, however, that the R’s have misplayed this whole thing and that started long before the decision to defund the ACA via the CR. Which would have been temporary anyway as once a Budget was passed the majority could have overridden it.

    And lets not forget that the Administration and the Dems were claiming that defunding was IMPOSSIBLE because they created a new MANDATED ENTITLEMENT.

    So if that was in fact true then why not just agree to the CR defunding language?

    This is not really a Tantrum over the ACA Buck. It is much more than that. And the Dem’s response is not really about the ACA or the CR either.

    The heart of this is the lack of respect and willingness to do real negotiations over the bigger issues affecting our DEBT and our BUDGET.

    Claiming that Reid and Boehner agreed to a CR of some sorts is a charade, a smoke screen to hide the real RIFT between Both houses and the Executive.

    And it is NOT all the Tea Party’s fault. Good leadership would have neutralized the radical components long ago.

    Reid, Pelosi and Obama have led the charge and have poisoned the well by violating one of the oldest norms in D.C.. “Hard on the issues but soft on the people”.

    Now they are reaping what they sowed. But I don’t think they care because I honestly believe their goal is NOT to reach agreement over details. It is to DESTROY the Republican Party as an effective opponent.

    After the 2010 elections they realized they can’t finish the “transformation” process unless the R’s are neutralized to the point that they cannot win even when the people get pissed at the Dems.

    As for the R’s they just keep playing into their game. I don’t know how many times I have to post here how stupid I think the Republican leadership is before you guys accept that as my view point.

    • What exactly is it that you think the republicans should do -right now-you can’t change the past?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        They have to deal with two things. One is the CR and Debt ceiling, and other legislative stuff, which everyone watches. The other is to BUILD a coalition WITH the Tea Party, including Libertarians. This is the place where I think they have failed the most. Which then causes the public wars the media gets to feed on.

        As for the CR and Debt Ceiling they need to develop a SOLID COMMUNICATION plan and then implement it that deals with the DEBT and the BUDGET. Then pass the CR along with the Debt Limit Extension with BOTH expiring on Dec 31, 2013. Return pay to Federal workers for the current shut down but let them know that on Dec 31’st there will be NO MORE PAY REINSTATED if the Govt shuts down again. Let the American People KNOW what the Budget Goals are and Why. Then link the CR or shut down to those Goals.

        If we need the spending reduced by 15% then we shut down until we get to the 15%.

        Between now and then start passing Single Agency/Dept Appropriation Bills in the House. Negotiate on the Single Bills, NOT on the Comprehensive Budget. Pretty soon the Dems will be screaming to negotiate the entire budget. This should ONLY be done if Both sides FIRST AGREE TO THE PROCEDURES. These must eliminate the Dems in the Senate from adding BS amendments and “resolutions” designed to only embarrass R’s. The R’s in the meantime should not resort to the same games.

        Part of the R’s problem is lack of a coherent “Goal” or long game. If they have one I sure would like to know what it is. At least with Bush we knew what he wanted to do with Soc Security. What is the Republican GOAL TODAY??

        What is the BUDGET GOAL??? This is where Todd, Mathius and others have legit criticism. If it is the Ryan budget then why not accept spending in line with that budget when offered? We know it wasn’t really offered but they need to play the game so that the media understands it is not real.

        The move by Boehner to extend the Debt Ceiling today as a move to get the President to negotiate was a GOOD MOVE. It should have been anticipated and done YESTERDAY following the Big Meeting. But at least it seems to be a good move even if done today.

        The Pres. and Reid are going to try and make the R’s look UNREASONABLE. Anticipate and plan moves to counter this each and every time while NOT giving up the fight.

        One other thing I think the R’s have been doing well, although not a major “strategy”.

        I have not heard the personal attacks and hyperbole from the R’s that I hear from the Dems. This is part of how one sounds “reasonable” even when your demands are strong or harsh to some.

        Oh, and the R’s need to start articulating the Damn Principles they are fighting for. Otherwise the budget fight and the fight over the ACA just look like TANTRUMS to the left and the media will simply paly off this.

        They need to articulate WHY Justice Roberts and his Four playmates were full of SHIT in their ruling on the Mandate Tax. This is the primary thorn stuck in the American craw. Attack the MANDATE………again and again and again as a direct attack on FREEDOM and LIBERTY.

        • “The move by Boehner to extend the Debt Ceiling today as a move to get the President to negotiate was a GOOD MOVE.”

          Do you really believe this?

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Yes I do. But that opinion is based on where the R’s are today.

            Once they revealed their game they have to find a way to play the game they started.

            This is a Good Move given where they are today.

            Every time the R’s offer SOMETHING and the Pres or REID say HELL NO, the public’s opinion of the PRES and REID drop further. The more it drops the less leverage they will have in the end.

        • Mathius™ says:

          The other is to BUILD a coalition WITH the Tea Party, including Libertarians. This is the place where I think they have failed the most.

          I think the Republicans have a problem with this because the Republican party isn’t really an ideologically cohesive entity. It’s made up of several factions: the religious right, fiscal conservatives, war hawks / anti-terr’ism folks, libertarians, deregulation, pro-big-business, pro-small business, energy-hawks, and, most recently, arch-libertarian Tea Party. (and any/every conceivable mix thereof)

          But the demands of, say, the war hawks are fundamentally at odds with the Tea Party who wants a smaller government. Likewise, efforts to strip out safety nets runs counter to the religious right, but is a central tenant of libertarianism. And so on and so forth.

          The Blue Shirts are, certainly, divided as well (see Green vs moderates, etc), but they aren’t nearly as factioned. It makes it much easier for the party as a whole to “get along.”

          I’m not bashing the Republican caucus in any way here – I’m not assigning any criticism of any sort – but this is the world as I see it. And I don’t see how the Republicans are going to be able to bridge this gap – it seems like they’re coming apart at the seams while the threat of “divided-we-fall” versus a more unified Democratic party is the only glue still holding it together.


          • Just A Citizen says:


            YES! The R’s have their proverbial hands full, and nary a leader qualified to deal with it.

            Although the reason the Dems “seem” to get along is because the IDEOLOGUES are in charge.

            In the R party it is the Good Ol’ Boys still trying to hold on. I liken the R’s current situation to what the D’s went through when Carter lost and then the infighting during the Reagan years. Clinton’s ability to prevail and then move center was the final straw.

            People forget that Reagan didn’t win just because of the “southern strategy”. He also won over WESTERN Democrats. When these “moderates” started voting Republican the more radical folks were able to move into the Dem leadership chairs.

            I do get a kick out of all the left wing blogs going on and on about the death of the Republican party. Both sides have announced the others demise several times over the past hundred years or so, only to be proven wrong.

            • Mathius™ says:

              Although the reason the Dems “seem” to get along is because the IDEOLOGUES are in charge.

              I actually think the opposite is true.

              I think the people in charge of the Blue Party are pragmatic nihilists who could care less about ideology. It’s why they’re so fickle and spineless all the time.

              In the R party it is the Good Ol’ Boys still trying to hold on. I liken the R’s current situation to what the D’s went through when Carter lost and then the infighting during the Reagan years.


              Let’s pause and savor it, shall we?

              Both sides have announced the others demise several times over the past hundred years or so, only to be proven wrong.

              True. But parties don’t last forever. They adapt or they die. What happens at the end-game of those “good ol’ boys trying to hold on”?

              Adapt or die?

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I tried to get this across many times. The IDEOLOGY of the Progressive Movement includes PRAGMATISM not just dogmatic socialism. Throw in a large dose of Hubris, arrogance and the occasional Narcissist and your getting close.

                There is an AGENDA, FDR’s unfinished business, but as long as they are PROGRESSING or moving FORWARD they are happy. Pragmatism and Nihilism are a large part of what the “P” Progressive is all about. At the same time, the “agenda” is not the only action they take. Because their dogma is primarily “pragmatism” they are ALWAYS in need of “reforming” or “adjusting” or “renovation” or some other thing that involves constant CHANGE for the sake of CHANGE. But behind that “change” is the ethical standard of ALTRUISM, in the original sense, and a politics based on the Fabian Socialist world view.

                That is why I have said you are NOT a “P” Progressive but maybe a “p” progressive. Probably more accurately a traditional Liberal tainted by your Socialist education and environment. Which would have allowed you to call yourself a LIBERAL in the 60’s and early 70’s. You would have fit in quite well with me and my friends in those days. Except I wasn’t demonstrating against Viet Nam, which gave them some heart burn.

                But either form supports the Fascist political/economic model.

                If you don’t think the radicals are running the show then just look to what happened as soon as Obama got elected and Pelosi got the House. Slam bam……….Obama Care.

                Yes, it was NOT the Socialist’s dream of Single Payer, but not because of leaderships lack of radicalism. It was due to the Blue Dogs still left in the Dem party. If not for them, you would have gotten your Single Payer Insurance. But they were NOT the leadership.

                Max Baucus was one of the Blue Dogs, well at least Blue Spots but was pushed aside with his original version of Health Care that would have been more of a bi-partisan bill in the end. Instead he was forced to help develop the ACA as a Compromise within the Dem Party.

                As for the good ol’ boys outcome you forgot the third option. They WIN and nothing really changes. Or Option 4, the new guys become the new Good Ol’ Boys. Try to break into local Democratic Party politics as an avowed “moderate” and you will see what I mean.

                I have one other thought for you. The only reason the rift in the Dem party is not causing damage is the lack of leadership skill in the Republican Party. If it were me the Dems would be at each other’s throats by now. Green vs Hispanic vs Blacks, vs, Gays, vs ……

                I would like to see an END to Political Parties, but since that is not happening, I for one would like to see a few more Political Parties that are ideologically pure. This would provide greater chances for “coalitions” to form on any particular issue or piece of legislation. It would also prevent legislation from passing without large public support. Until the log rolling between groups becomes established!

                But then again, I want to AMEND the Constitution so that it means something once again. That is just how we crazy Radical Right Wing Liberal are you know. We live for fixing things to last instead of constantly tinkering with everything just for the fun of it, or because we think we are smarter than everyone else.

                We are not that far apart Mathius. Except of course on your Socialist goals. I reject those out of hand as bankrupt philosophy. However, we are where we are today. So I can live with moving towards the “right side” a little at a time. So in the tweaking of some things I certainly agree.

                But no longer am I willing to move leftward since that is backwards. 🙂

    • Mathius™ says:

      Just like the filibuster. When it works for you it is protecting the minority from tyranny of the majority. When it works against you it is a TANTRUM.

      Please try to appreciate the difference between using a tool as intended and abusing a process.

      The filibuster is in place so that the majority cannot just run rough-shod over the minority. It is not in place so that the minority can use it one virtually everything that moves in the Senate and grinds everything to a screeching halt unless it has 60 votes.

      Similarly, the debt ceiling is a (failed) attempt at controlling spending – it is not a tool by which the minority is supposed to furlough thousands of workers and shutter half the government while it demands things it can’t achieve though routine legislative action over the demands of the minority party, the majority in the other house, and the President himself.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        That is exactly why Congress created it. To provide a means of FORCING control if they ever had to do so.

        Well that time is NOW.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I did want to address one of your other comments about “obligations” created by Congress.

        The creation of an Agency or program is not an OBLIGATION to continue funding. Even if said agency or program is not eliminated via legislation. It never has been.

        Your argument smacks of the erroneous education we have been fed about how our govt works and/or should work.

        The ONLY Obligations are those entitlement programs that have been established to operate outside the normal appropriations process. Althought the debt service to cover the bonds purchased by those programs is an obligation as well, as are all Govt debt.

        As for normal operation, defense and other “discretionary”, there are some multi-year appropriations which would be true obligations if the money were in fact “obligated” prior to any shut down or debt ceiling date. These are funds for contracts issued that cannot be terminated and GRANTS to States, etc that have no provision for termination.

        If your view of “obligation” to fund govt were in fact valid, there would be no provision for the House to pass appropriation bills EACH YEAR.

        No Congress can tie the hands of a FUTURE Congress. That is the law. So creating the EPA yesterday does not require the Congress of today to fund the damn thing.

    • Mathius™ says:

      The heart of this is the lack of respect and willingness to do real negotiations over the bigger issues affecting our DEBT and our BUDGET.

      Here I somewhat agree with you.

      But it’s a problem that Red Shirts seem to want to slash and burn everything that resembles a social program while the Blue Shirts have far more moderate wish lists.

      It’s not really “negotiating” when one side demands the moon and the other side just wants minor tweeks.

      JAC: I’d like a piece of that coffee cake you’re eating. Care to trade?

      Mathius: Jac, I demand your first born, your car, your house, and I want you to set your hair on fire, too.

      JAC: Well, that doesn’t sound very good.

      Mathius: I can give you two crumbs if you’ll just set your hair on fire, but you’re not getting more unless I get the rest.

      JAC: Sorry, no deal.

      Mathius: SEE!! I knew you were unreasonable! Why won’t negotiate?

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I see your skill at creating absurd comparisons is as strong as ever.

        And you will have to provide me with some evidence, or interpretation if you will, on what “slash and burn” proposals you think have been made with respect to social programs.

        If you think the Blue Shirts proposals are modest you are either not paying attention or are not the person you have been telling us you are.

        Single Payer…ie GOVT CONTROLLED AND OWNED health insurance is NOT a “modest” proposal.

        • I must have been taking a nap when the Dems shut down the government unless and until the GOP passed single payer….remind me how that turned out please!

          • Just A Citizen says:


            Clinton shut down the Govt all by himself. He was a Democrat.

            He was just throwing a TANTRUM because he lost control of the House and Senate.

            I never claimed the Dems shut down govt over single payer. I said the Dems proposals are not “modest”.

        • Mathius™ says:

          I see your skill at creating absurd comparisons is as strong as ever.

          It’s a gift, what can I say?

  15. John Delany, Democrat, of Maryland just held a great news conference. He said that he is hearing a huge outcry from his constituents about the current “bickering” in Washington and why is there no one talking. He was right to the point. His constituents are not blaming Republicans for it. He said, it is not the Republicans nor the Democrats… is about bad leadership in both parties acting like, and I quote, ” romper room rejects “. He said that they, meaning the leadership, are more concerned with their own power and not about the country. He further said that the President has the power of discretionary spending and he does not understand why he is not exercising is power to fund the things that should be instead of delegating it down to, and I quote, ” pathetic little fifedoms that are immune from public scrutiny”. There was a little more but I could not write fast enough.

    I wonder what his chances are of rising in the Democratic Party?

  16. Just A Citizen says:
    • Mathius™ says:

      Oh please. The Lizard People had that, and every election since, thoroughly rigged. Jesus Christ himself could have descended from heaven to stump with Ditka and Obama would still have won.

      Just like Azerbaijan!


  17. @ Buck…….this is a real question. As an “officer of the court”…. I assume you take your profession very seriously….you made reference to Obamacare being the law of the land, approved by SCOTUS…..since it is the law of the land, if I am understanding correctly, then no one, including POTUS has the right to decide when it is to be followed and when it is not to be followed. It is the law.

    You made the comment that since it is the law of the land, the Republicans are holding hostage the law. ( words to that effect )….. Isn’t it the same, that the POTUS chose to ” violate ” the law of the land by not adhering to the law? After all, there were definite start times for implementation to big business and the POTUS elected to disregard that part of the law but cannot disregard the individual mandate because it is law.

    I feel like you dodged my question….and it is this… can you or anyone hold to the theory of law, when it is violated by the POTUS… How can it be one way and not the other? Is that not hypocritical? More of this selective enforcement?

    What am I missing?

    • Please first provide a specific instance where the President violated the express terms of the law. Next please provide full context as to why the President does not have authority to make such a determination (remember not too long ago our discussion on prosecutorial discretion).

      Not trying to dodge your questions, but you need to give me something more specific to respond to.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Careful, Colonel.

        Remember that these laws are LEGAL documents designed to be read from a legal viewpoint. Just like a plain reading of, say, the bible might not net you the true intent, similarly, it’s entirely possible that Buck, a trained lawyer, possesses insights which you lack due to your lay perspective.

        Porsecutorial discretion is only one such fancy term – he has buckets full of others just like this.

        • Mathius…..all you say is true and both of you in your answer, just proved what is wrong with our system. I do not have to provide specific instances….Buck knows exactly what I asked but is playing the Potomac Two step. Laws are written in Washington specifically to accommodate ” plausible deniability” and written with cleverly designed non specific clauses so Buck, or his ilk, can use the two step to not answer the question and fashion a response that makes no sense. As you noted, I am merely a ” lay person” but I do possess something that most barristers do not……..common sense……and I do not mean that in a disparaging way. Attorneys are trained in the fine arts of side step and wayward interpretations….I deal with them all the time and Buck knows this better than I. We deal with estate planners and tax attorneys on a consistent basis and I know full well how they manipulate the tax codes on interpretations. So, I am out of my league, in trying to banter the law.

          Common sense yells out to me that if one side uses the argument that ” it is the law of the land, live with it and then says that the POTUS can pick the law apart for his gain is the most ludicrous statement I can think of……and this prosecutorial discretion is bunk…..pure bunk…..either enforce the law as it is written or get rid of the law…….why have a law if you can decide when to follow it. To me, that is the height of hypocrisy.

          • Hey! I don’t “manipulate the tax codes”; I read and interpret the tax codes. There’s a difference.

            The issue with prosecutorial discretion vs this ‘law of the land’ thing is in the player – Congress has no such discretion (except to repeal / amend existing law, of course). The President does have discretion….to an extent.

            • Interpret…..manipulate…….lol. The only difference is in the spelling…..that said, we are eternally grateful for the machinations of the barrister clan.

            • Interesting view point in your prosecutorial discretion……and a nice deflection……let’s us drop the term prosecutorial…..and use application instead. I maintain that the law is the law. One cannot decide when to apply with discrimination. Even a POTUS. That is not executive privilege. And IT IS NOT RIGHT…….nor ethical. And, I really believe you think that despite your coffee drinking Yankee stance. ( said with respect, of course ) take good care of that baby….I want you to remember me when she hits 13.

  18. Just came back from the funeral for Plt. Sgt. Nicholas Oresco in Paramus NJ. Sgt. Oresco earned the Medal of Honor in 1944 at the Battle of The Bulge. It was an honor and privilege to attend.The Army Honor Guard and Firing party, according to a Corporal, was finagled by their Sergeant despite Government shut-downs. No 105’s nor flyover though. A three star did present the flag to the family.

    I must still look pretty good. I wore my Boy Scout regalia including the Smokey the Bear Hat. Another MOH holder came over and asked me if I was Marine DI!

  19. Just A Citizen says:


    Here is some of that Progressive Ideology I was trying to describe above. Supported by false information, rationalizations and faulty logic. But then TRUTH doesn’t matter to dogmatic folks who are hardened in their thinking.

    Oh, the quote is Robert Reich:

    “The best argument for the Affordable Care Act is that our current health care system is so dysfunctional — the most expensive in the world with the least healthy outcomes (highest infant mortality, shortest life spans, worst rates of chronic disease) of any advanced nation — that we had no choice but to try to fix it. Even so, it’s a typical American fix: We’re still basing it on private health providers and private insurers. All government does is subsidize the poor, require insurers to take in people with pre-existing health problems, and pay for it by requiring everyone to be insured. ”

    One more thing, in this same article he admits that a “majority of Americans don’t like the ACA”. Yet he has been telling his followers that the Republican claim that a “majority of Americans don’t like the ACA” is a blatant lie.

    Would this be evidence of some of that Nihilism you mentioned?

    • Mathius™ says:

      The “ACA” is moderately unpopular (except in Conservative circles where it’s wildly unpopular). The individual components of the ACA, however, are popular (with the notable exception of the individual mandate, of course – but even then, 40% approve). What this says to me is that people are against something they don’t understand. They hate the ACA, but don’t even know what it really does. America!

      • Just A Citizen says:


        It would be more accurate to say “SOME” of the individual components are popular.

        Many folks love the prior condition restrictions and the extension of coverage on family policies until 26.

        But you will not find a majority who cheer the idea of being FORCED to buy insurance or having their policies modified to meet ACA requirements.

        Many, I don’t know if most, will not give one iota of care over the ACTUAL cost of the ACA either. As long as they think they are getting FREE COOKIES they will be happy.

        The DEM party and the Progressive Agenda DEPEND on this human behavior.

  20. Well, we have certainly talked a lot about how we feel about the shut down.

    But the dems. haven’t commented on the government actions during the shut down. I found it infuriating to see how willing the federal government and scary to see how willing it’s employee’s where to treat American citizens like criminals and to act like they owned everything- simply because they wanted too. Makes the argument that the federal government is too big and too powerful pretty clear.

    • I cannot believe that all federal employees agree with the actions being taken. How many rangers have refused to man or install the barricades? Why is there no vocal objections from these people? The silence is deafening and seems to be an echo of 1930s Germany.

      Sieg Heil!

      • T-Ray,
        You really think NPS Rangers would side with the GOP? Never mind the government shutdown – how about the fact that the GOP has been cutting funding to the NPS, threatening their jobs and the National Parks they love?

        I’ve been in many National Parks, and the rangers I’ve met have all been incredible people who will answer the same questions over and over, always with a smile, and always willing to help people understand and enjoy the parks they have dedicated their lives too.

        I’m sure they’re not happy with the closings, but they don’t have a choice. They’re doing their jobs to protect the parks they love.

        And it’s not the silence that is an echo of 1930s Germany. It’s the “small vocal groups” that are trying to change history to suit their narrow vision of the world…

        • No they are doing the bidding of the democratic party. They are being used as pawns. They have made a choice that their job is more important then their honor or the rights of the citizens they serve. See V.H.’s article on the civil service below.

    • V.H. I agree, the liberals on this site have not condemned the presidents actions with regards to the park service actions. I find this troubling. They are free with their condemnation of the repubs.

      • T-Ray,
        I have. It seems you choose to ignore my answers.

        Do you support the House GOP’s actions to force the government shutdown which is causing the SHUT DOWN of PRIVATE BUSINESS AND TO BLOCK ACCESS TO NATIONAL MONUMENTS AND CEMETERIES?

        • The House did not force the shutdown, they have fully funded the government in several bills. The Senate did when they refused to negotiate. The House did not close the monuments and cemeteries and private businesses. Obama did. It was his choice to actively block access these facilities. There is a difference to active blockading and passive closure.

          I have not seen your condemnation of these actions other than your condemnation of republicans. I have not chosen to ignore your responses. I have in fact responded to most of them and asked many questions of you which you have ignored. As Seed said above, the is a train ahead on our track. Do you want to discuss the options or just point fingers. I have said many times in the last couple of days, when do we have a real discussion of debt and entitlements?

          • “The House did not force the shutdown…”

            SLAM! [head hitting brick wall]

            • Careful Buck, I learned long ago not to slam heads against walls…they do not give and you will only get a head ache……have you not yet learned, that politics are polarizing and even has caused divorce. You are probably not old enough to remember the politics of the 60’s and 70’s ( given the age of your youngster ) but they were pretty rough and tumble however, in the end, both houses would get together.

              What I want to know….is why is everyone so upset and making fun of the Tea Party? If they are a joke, or are as ineffective as everyone claims, why even give them lip service. Just ignore them. Why is the RINO faction of the Republican Party so adamant against them? It does not make sense. Just ignore them…..they will go away………………………..not.

            • The House is being obstinate but so is Reid in the Senate. The House has passed CR after CR watering down their original position showing the willingness to compromise. They have passed CRs for individual portions of the government. All have been blocked in the Senate. They have asked for negotiations. Again refused. So just which group is truly the obstinate group here?

              • T-Ray — there already was compromise and an agreement reached. Then the GOP decided to add in a complete non-starter.

                Please re-read Todd’s comments on this.

              • Seriously, what is it with you guys. The Speaker isn’t god-my representative from my State doesn’t have to walk in lock step with what two men decide-if the speakers can’t get the other reps to agree they’re is not an agreement.

  21. I’m also reposting this article in case anyone missed it.

    The end of civil service?
    posted at 12:01 pm on October 10, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

    Over 140 years ago, the federal government began its reform of the bureaucracy to the civil-service system, a process which took decades to complete. Its pinnacle of reform came in 1939 when Congress passed the Hatch Act, which barred federal employees from conducting political activity on taxpayer time and government property. As government expanded rapidly from that point, though, the federal bureaucracy developed its own interests in policy, and this year we have reaped the results. In my column for The Fiscal Times, I write that the IRS scandal and the National Parks Service antics during the shutdown show that the civil-service ideal is dead — especially in this administration:

    In May, the Inspector General for the IRS found that the agency had targeted groups applying for tax-exempt status on the basis of their political beliefs, especially those groups that referenced the Tea Party. Those target lists continued to be used as IRS officials such as Commissioner Douglas Shulman testified to Congress that the agency conducted no such targeting.

    Nor was that that the only way in which the IRS scrutinized President Obama’s opposition. USA Today reported three weeks ago that the IRS specifically targeted groups that had “anti-Obama rhetoric” in their literature.

    In one case, with an application from the Patriots of Charleston, the IRS flagged “negative Obama commentary” on their website as a reason to hold up approval for their tax-exempt application. For the Tea Party of North Idaho, “significant inflammatory language, highly emotional language” was enough to start peppering the group with demands to release information on their donors and the companies owned by those donors. …

    Unknown at the time but reported this week, the National Parks Service chased down a group of senior citizens at Yellowstone National Park when the shutdown commenced on October 1st. After informing the busload of tourists, some of whom were tourists from other countries, that the park was no longer accessible, the rangers locked them into a closed hotel for several hours with armed guards posted at the exits. When finally allowed to get back on the bus and leave Yellowstone, rangers stopped the tourists from pausing to take pictures, chasing after them for “recreating.”

    That arguably constitutes kidnapping or false arrest, especially conducted under color of authority for no other reason than to score political points in the shutdown. One of the tourists called it “Gestapo tactics,” and an NPS ranger anonymously confirmed this as a deliberate strategy by NPS. “We’ve been told to make life as difficult for people as we can,” the anonymous ranger told The Washington Times. “It’s disgusting.”

    It certainly is, and it’s part of a disturbing pattern emerging in the second term of Barack Obama.

    That last incident in particular goes far beyond the already-objectionable “Washington Monument strategy” of extorting operating funds out of Congress. It speaks to two related developments in American governance — the expansion of power in the federal government, and the arbitrary manner in which it gets applied. That may be called many things, but it’s neither “civil” nor “service.”

    David French wrote about the same issue earlier this week for National Review:

    An ethical agency would evaluate its options in the face of cutbacks and do its best — in concert with state and local governments and citizen volunteers — to maintain the broadest possible access to the public. Any closures would be a regrettable necessity, not a defiant statement, and under no circumstances would more money be spent to keep the public out than it took to allow the public in. But we are not dealing with an ethical agency.

    Mark Steyn a few minutes ago called for the abolition of the NPS and IRS, and given the abysmal conduct of both agencies, I agree. But the rot goes far deeper. We’re witnessing the end of the civil service.

    The utopian goal of the civil service was to create something like a professional class of public servants, individuals dedicated to the public good regardless of the party in power — a final break from the spoils system and its attendant rampant corruption and cronyism. And in one sense the civil-service system succeeded. The spoils system was broken. Instead, however, of either the back-and-forth of the old system, or the true “civil service” envisioned by the new, there’s now a permanent distribution of spoils – to one side of our ideological divide.

    It doesn’t matter to me which side of the ideological divide it serves, actually. We have returned to the spoils system, only now an incoming administration can’t clear out the careerists any longer, thanks to the civil-service protections that were supposed to keep federal bureaucrats independent and professional. This gives a President either an army of federal workers to punish Americans for opposing his policies, or a band of saboteurs to undermine his policies. It’s unconscionable and untenable, and needs to be addressed.

    Glenn Reynolds suggests, tongue a little in cheek perhaps, that we need to go back to the full-spoils system:

    It’s also disturbing how little pushback there has been from the supposedly nonpartisan civil service — which, of course, is composed overwhelmingly of Democrats.

    As I’ve suggested before, a return to the “spoils system” would be more honest — and politicians might be less willing to grant so much power to the government if they knew that sooner or later it would be in the hands of their political enemies. It would also mean, of course, that a government job would no longer be a lifelong proposition — but that might not be a bug, but a feature, too.

    What we really need is a large-scale reduction in government power to greatly reduce the number of bureaucrats and their ability to conduct politics through regulation. And I’d start with the National Parks Service by returning the land to the states, which will make access and regulation a lot more accountable to the people who live there.

  22. Stephen,

    And, he ran the Soviet Union into the ground with it! Fair exchange at the time.

    That’s just another excuse that’s not even true. It was the cost of 10 years of war in Afghanistan (among many other things) that did in the Soviet Union.

    Reagan said economic growth would cover the cost of his tax cuts. It never did.

    And one more thing – Obama saved the world from The Great Recession. I’d say that’s a “Fair exchange”.

    • testing

      • Great, now it works! Lost my brilliant counter post! Must be the commies in the WH.

        • And you’re not going to retype it? So we’re all going to miss out on your “brilliant” words of wisdom? 😉

          My day just seems empty now…

          PS – next time, use the “BACK” button a few times. You might get back to your text.

          • Try it again, short version.

            1. You are a revisionist.

            2. Who you think made the USSR unhappy in Afghanistan with things like shoulder fired SAM’s?

            3. Who predicted the fall of the USSR? Hint, not Harvard, Not Yale, Not the NY Times, Not the State Department, not Paul Krugman.

            4. Ever hear of Glasnost?

            5. Ever hear of Peaceful Coexistence?

            6. Ever hear of Richard Nixon or Henry Kissinger?

            7. Ever hear of MAD?

            8. Ever hear of US wheat sales to the USSR at subsidized prices?

            10. What was the percentage of increased revenue to the Treasury during (I won’t even say because of) the tax cut period? Didn’t the same peculiar thing happen when JFK was president?

            11. After the USSR collapsed how much of the new income/peace dividend was put away in a rainy day fund by Bush 1, Congress, Clinton , Bush 2?

          • P.S. Back button did not work any of the times. Kept getting the message that my “Facebook” acct was not linked any longer. Then it came back on its own. Probably the NSA

            PPS if you sit around all day just waiting for my posts, then I have to advise you to try and get a life. While I am fascinating, interesting, well informed and certainly smarter than the average bear, it is a wonderful world out there. Just yesterday when out for my morning Constitutional, I flushed a Blue jay in the park, right in front of me. He took off at my 12 o’clock heading in the same direction till he was well up in the trees. Never had this view of a Blue jay before, the wing markings from that angle were incredible as they fluttered. As if that wasn’t good enough a cardinal popped out next! After my chuckle and smile fades on little things like this I wonder what in the world makes people want to take drugs and dull their senses..

            God made a wonderful place.

            • LMAO..just tell him to’s much easier 🙂

              (all in fun Todd, all in fun!)

            • Stephen,

              PPS if you sit around all day just waiting for my posts, then I have to advise you to try and get a life.

              But your posts are ALWAYS the high point of my day!! 😉 And SUFA is my life! 😉

              While I am fascinating, interesting, well informed and certainly smarter than the average bear…

              You certainly are!!

              …it is a wonderful world out there.

              I had an interesting thing happen today too. I was doing some trail work and met some people hiking on the trail. They said they weren’t sure if the trail would be open…I couldn’t figure out why they would think that…they said because of the government shutdown…

              It’s comical that I hadn’t thought of this. You see, there is at least one unit of the National Parks Service that is “open as usual” during the government shutdown. I know this because I personally am 100% completely responsible for it.

              I’ve talked in the past that I maintain trails for hiking, mountain biking, cross-country skiing and snowshoeing. The main trail is part of the National Trails System of the NPS. It’s a unique trail in the National Trails System, and because of a quirk in the National Trails System law, this trail is under local control and jurisdiction, and that’s me.

              I haven’t heard from the NPS that I need to shut it down…yet. 😉

              It was a beautiful day today – low 60s, sunny, a nice breeze, and the fall colors – although past “peak”, are still beautiful. After I got done cleaning up two down tree tops and cutting brush on a mile of trail (you want to have “fun”, come along with me and cut brush for 3 hours…), I took the dogs on a long hike this afternoon.

              And the fun part – we flushed all kinds of ruffled grouse. My dogs are Siberian Huskies, not hunting dogs, so when the grouse take off (usually right next to us), it scares the CRAP out of me and the dogs! Juno would jump AWAY from the grouse and hide behind Aurora – what a wuss!

              We also say two pileated woodpeckers and several hawks. It certainly is a wonderful world out there!

              • See, there you go! Used to do eh trail stuff with the Scouts in my younger days. f you need then I have a access to a dozen fluorescent traffic cones so you can shut the trail down. The wife uses them in the pre-K when the kids take the riding toys out in the parking lot.

                Nice dogs!

  23. Brought forward Mathius said:
    “Here’s a thought, T-Ray: The debt ceiling is not a political football. This is the money the US government, through its legislation, has obligated itself to spend. The question should never be “do we feel like paying for this thing we’ve bought.” Once you’ve bought it, you pay. Period. That’s the way to do things. If the Red Shirts want to obliterate 90% of the government, that’s their prerogative, but they shouldn’t do it by threatening to clinch the purse strings of things they’ve already agreed to pay.

    Image that you find yourself in budgetary hot water in the Ray household. You turn to Mrs. Ray and say “I’m going to refuse to pay our mortgage or car payments or utility bills until you get your spending under control.” Well, no, that’s not how it works. You pay the goddamn mortgage. THEN you try to figure out what you need to do to balance the budget – and if that means moving into a smaller house, that’s fine, and if that means she has to spend less on her Hummel figurine collection, that’s fine too. But you can’t “negotiate” with your wife by threatening to crash the whole system until you get what you want.

    Congress should pass a clean debt limit increase and then, if necessary, fight it out for the budget. The only reason they’re doing it this way is because they know they don’t have the muscle to do it the right way, so they’re resorting to dangerous tactics. But if they don’t have the muscle in congress / the White House to get their way, well isn’t that the whole point of a representative democracy? That the MAJORITY gets their way? Why should this MINORITY get to demand that the MAJORITY do things their way?”

    T-Ray said earlier:
    “Yes, if the debt ceiling is not raised there will be issues but default on the debt is not one of them or need not be one of them. There is more than enough money to cover interest and debt service. What will be impacted will be current outstanding bills and new expenditures over and above the remaining income. Some bill payments can be delayed. Corporations do this all the time. Net 30 becomes net 45 or 90. Our current deficit is about $600B or about $50B/mo. So out of a $2.5T [correction $3.5B] budget or $200B/mo [correction $300B] budget, we need to delay spending $50B/mo until the ceiling is raised. That is a 25% delay [correction 16%] in expenditures for the few days of this grid lock. This is entirely feasible and any rational CEO would manage it. Unfortunately our current executive is spending more on the NP Service closures than it would to keep them open on a normal basis all for political gain. This is just one example of his incompetence as a fiscally responsible executive.

    As for the markets, they are being panicked by Sec. Lew and the President and their sycophantic press. It is just another example of fools being separated from their money.”

    T-Ray Live:
    The default talk is a bunch of hokum and a scare tactic. Matt, you had an earlier parable about the Ray household finances. Basically pay the bills and then set the wife down and negotiate a proper budget. What if she will not negotiate or if she ignores the result of the negotiation? At what point do you just take the credit card away?

    During the last debt crisis, the dems screamed more taxes and then we will talk about spending reductions. They got the taxes but no real discussion on spending and entitlements followed. This scenario has been repeated several times. How many times must the football be jerked away before the answer is no? The HoR has primary budget responsibility as spending and tax acts must start there. It is their duty to say no if that is what is warranted. And the public did elect a majority of repubs to that house in the last election.

  24. For those who think this recession/depression is over and that Obama saved us from a fate worse than death, I have few observations. I continue to see new unemployment numbers that exceed new job numbers by a factor of 2. The new jobs numbers do not exceed the number of students graduating from HS & college who are entering the work force along with the immigration rates, legal or otherwise. This is basically jobless recovery if one can call it a recovery.

    Your company provides technology to the petroleum and chemical processing industry worldwide. This industry typically goes up and down with the economy. Gasoline production expands as more people travel. Polymers typically trends with the auto industry. During the ’08-’09 down turn, business tanked and we laid off and went to 4 day workweeks. This made us a fairly lean organization. We have hired back but very cautiously. Since the down turn our business picked up and we did well through 2012. However, since the first of this year we have seen a very sharp reduction in business to the tune of about 40%. The first questions are always is it us, are our products not good enough or is this a general down turn. Well it is not just us. Our competition is suffering too as well as other providers to these industries. Oil may be booming in ND but the refineries and chemical plants are not spending money as they have in the past. Why? This is not just domestic but worldwide. Something has these companies spooked.

  25. Politics Anyone? … Fun Shot of the Week … Movie Review … The Diamond Collar … Kyle Carey … This week in the NFL …

  26. @ Todd….I am not going to do all of your research for you. Go to……the exemptions are listed there.

    In specific…..Restaurants in Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) district have exemptions. As Americans for Prosperity notes, “When ObamaCare was in its infancy, the Obama administration began handing out waivers to employers for various other provisions of the law. In early 2011, the administration issued waiver after waiver to politically connected businesses [such as] restaurants and hip nightclubs in former-Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s district.”

    Congressmen and staffers, despite widely reported misconceptions, do not have an exemption. As Peter Suderman has clarified, what they have “isn’t exactly an exemption. It’s a form of special treatment.” In other words, Hill staffers were irritated by a provision of the health law that would have cost them money. And they got a bureaucratic fix to make the problem go away. Most Americans frustrated by some specific provision in Obamacare, on the other hand, won’t be so lucky. ( I am sorry, but a rose is a rose by any other name…..special treatment is an exemption ) addresses the employers over 50 personnel, under 50 personnel…….giving them extensions ( exemptions ) for a year and more in some cases….why not give individuals the same deal? The system is not ready as is being proven.

    Obama administration denied the labor union exemption ( just recently ) due to the outcry from the public….however, there is a bill sitting on the desk of Senator Reid to grant special exemptions to all union healthcare members whose plans fit a specifically designed healthcare fashioned after the narrowly designed exemptions given specific ministries defined in

    It is all smoke and mirrors, Todd, and I know you understand this. You are way too informed not too…..I can appreciate your zeal, but this is about fairness.

    Let me ask you this question…..why are there exemptions of ANY kind? If there is supposed to be a fair and equitable solution to health care…..fair enough……so everyone….EVERYONE should participate at the same level, would you not think so? No ” special treatment “…….. No special exemptions… exceptions.

    • Colonel,

      I am not going to do all of your research for you.

      We’ve been over this before. When you post something, it is YOUR responsibility to back it up with facts. It is NOT my job to find the facts you used in your post. If that were the case, I could make any stupid comment and claim that it is a fact, and then you’d have to debunk it…it doesn’t work that way.

      And just because Americans for Prosperity writes an article, doesn’t make it true, especially when they do not have links to any sources.

      I went to I didn’t see any of the exemptions you list there, so I guess that’s means they are not true, right?

      If you would like to tell me where in they are listed, I’ll look again.

      Let’s go thru your claims:

      Justify why there should be an individual mandate and all of Congress, and the POTUS, is exempt including the staff and their families?

      Not true. I believe Mathius covered this.

      So did

      Claim: Congress is exempt from the law. says: False.

      Several versions of this claim have been circulating since before the Affordable Care Act was passed. But no matter how many different ways the critics spin it, Congress isn’t exempt from the law. In fact, members and their staffs face additional requirements that other Americans don’t. Beginning in 2014, they can no longer get insurance through the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program, as they and other federal employees have done. Instead, they are required to get insurance through the insurance exchanges. capitoldome

      This “exempt” nonsense first percolated before that provision was added to the law through a Republican amendment. Before the amendment, the legislation said that Congress — as well as federal employees, employees of large companies, and those who get insurance through Medicare or Medicaid — wouldn’t be eligible for the exchanges, which were created by the law for those buying their own insurance and small businesses. But that certainly didn’t make Congress “exempt” — lawmakers were treated like any other worker with employer-provided health insurance. They were required to have coverage or face a penalty.

      The claim has persisted even after the provision requiring Congress to get insurance from the exchanges became part of the final law. Fast forward to spring 2013, and the assertion surfaced again when there was concern among lawmakers that the transition to exchange plans — particularly the transfer of the federal contribution toward premiums — wouldn’t go very smoothly. Politico published a piece on April 24 on lawmakers talking about changing the exchange requirement because of this. The headline on the story: “Lawmakers, aides may get Obamacare exemption.”

      On Aug. 7, the Office of Personnel Management, which administers the FEHB Program, issued a proposed rule saying that the federal government could continue to make contributions toward the premiums of lawmakers and their staffs on the exchanges. The federal government has long made such premium contributions, as other employers do for their employees. OPM said the contribution couldn’t be more than what it is under the FEHB Program. That ruling, perhaps predictably, sparked new — and still bogus — claims from Republicans of Congress being “exempt” from the law

      Justify why there should be an individual mandate when all of big business is exempt?

      Because big business is not an INDIVIDUAL? And they’re not exempt.

      Justify why there is an individual mandate when labor unions are exempt?

      Because unions are not an INDIVIDUAL? And they’re not exempt.

      Justify why, in Nancy Pelosi’s district, why there are individual waivers for her donors? Why does not the media report this? Because it is complicit with the fallacy.

      This is complete bullshit. Just think about it – Nancy Pelosi’s donors…don’t you think that people that make big enough donations to Pelosi to “get noticed”, are probably rich enough to have health insurance?

      Or is it your contention that Pelosi’s donors are all homeless, uninsured bums?

      I think a little “critical thinking” is missing here…

      Why is the largest employer in all of the United States….exempt

      Because the largest employer in all of the United States is not an INDIVIDUAL?

      Please name this employer so I can check it out.

      Let’s look at Unions a little closer. This is your statement:

      Obama administration denied the labor union exemption ( just recently ) due to the outcry from the public….however, there is a bill sitting on the desk of Senator Reid to grant special exemptions to all union healthcare members whose plans fit a specifically designed healthcare fashioned after the narrowly designed exemptions given specific ministries defined in

      Did you notice this part? a bill sitting on the desk of Senator Reid

      I’m pretty sure a “bill” is something that needs to be approved by the Senate and House and signed by the President to become law.

      Therefore, unions do not currently have an exemption. And I’m pretty sure this bill would have no chance of passing the House – or even the Senate.

      It is all smoke and mirrors, Todd, and I know you understand this. You are way too informed not too…..I can appreciate your zeal, but this is about fairness.

      The “smoke and mirrors” are on your side Colonel. I would have thought you’re way to informed to fall for these petty little right-wing scare-tactics.

      I guess I was wrong – because you continue to fall for this stupid crap…or are you pushing it for a reason?

      Let me ask you this question…..why are there exemptions of ANY kind? If there is supposed to be a fair and equitable solution to health care…..fair enough……so everyone….EVERYONE should participate at the same level, would you not think so? No ” special treatment “…….. No special exemptions… exceptions.

      There actually are some exemptions. They were created to ease the implementation of the law. I’ll post a link below (see, when I make claims, I back them up with Facts. You should try it sometime!)

      And there’s that word fairness again. If you really want fairness, then let’s implement Single Payer Universal Health Care. Wouldn’t that be great – and Fair!!

      And everyone’s salary in the military will be the same. We’ll start at the current federal minimum wage and give you a generous 1% raise every year. It’s only fair, right??

      • Colonel,
        Here’s the link that debunks most – if not all – of your claims.

        You don’t even have to thank me for doing your research.,0,6344095.story

        Here’s a little “teaser” for you:

        It’s worth noting that the administration denied organized labor the waiver it desperately wanted for the multi-employer plans unions run for about 20 million members. The unions wanted members to be eligible for the subsidies that the Affordable Care Act offers to Americans who don’t have access to affordable employer-sponsored plans. But the Treasury Department rejected that bid, saying the law forbids workers whose employers provide tax-subsidized insurance benefits to also receive premium subsidies.

        Oddly enough, Republicans have been pointing to the unions’ complaints about not getting this waiver as yet another sign of how the Affordable Care Act is failing, while simultaneously accusing the administration of granting hundreds of waivers to its friends in labor.


        • Read that one earlier……it is only partially correct. Just watch and you will see the same waiver that the ministries will get. I mentioned this, by the way.

          • Sounds like a prediction Colonel. What’s the time frame for this to come true?

            Like so many predictions here at SUFA, I doubt it will come true. And I keep track of them… 😉

        • I hope you saw my post about links, the other day…..who is to believe what…..the internet is full of links, pro and con, and you have to decide which one to believe. I now choose to discount most if not all…..they ALL have their own agendas. I suggested to go to the very source that I hate…….the governments own publications…..including the Federal Register. As much as I despise what is going on, I will be the first to say that it is the most accurate and that includes Fact Check and other sites like it.

          As I posted before, follow the money and see who owns the sources that everyone, including me, uses. I am very fast finding….none are very accurate and all have either conservative or liberal agendas…..

          Have a great day……time to remove more barriers.

          • Yes, I saw your post about what/who to believe. And you’re right, everyone has a bias. That’s why you have to look for multiple sources and always consider their point-of-view.

            But I disagree with your conclusion that none are reliable. You take that position because then you can dismiss any MSM news you don’t like, and just refer to your “special sources.”

            You point out the Federal Register because it’s an obscure publication that most people don’t have access too, so you can claim it supports your ‘facts”.

            And your ObamaCare “exemption” list is based on Americans for Prosperity. Not a very objective source.

      • Look again, friend….I posted that the Federal employees received special compensation treatment to which I said was an exemption…it is something that the general public will not get……special tax payer compensation = exemption. And, something you may not know, that the military, which are federal employees, until the outcry recently the ACA was not even going to qualify VA and Tricare under the ACA as an “approved” health plan……I and every other military member received their briefings and letters saying so……we, the military, have now been exempted from…..yes exempted, from the qualifiers of the ACA and Tricare and those receiving VA healthcare are now qualified. Now, we do NOT get the special compensation package that the others get but at least the program is now……just recently…..accepted. Woo hoo…….

        Fact check….as reliable as any other post or link. Maybe less so in some things…..more so in others. Look who owns it.

        But thank you for your reprimand, even if it is wrong…….however, thank you for your respect of the military.

        Healthcare. Org….prints exactly what the exemptions are, exactly how to apply for them….it also provides examples of approved exemptions as a guideline.

        But……….and one of my reasons for telling people to go to…….it shows the fallacy of a universal healthcare that is not universal. It is the most reliable source other than fact check, wiki, or any of the MSM……..liberal or conservative. I would also suggest that everyone read, every week, the publication called the Federal Register. It is ripe with what goes on in Washington, including the exemptions and requests for same. Beware……the Federal Register is very complicated, small print, and inundated with trivial day to day stuff….but hidden in it……it is amazing. But, even in our day of technology, you have to be a subscriber to it. It is never printed, in full, for everyone to get to on the internet highway. In our family business’, we have one employee whose sole job is to read it…everyday. It comes in snail mail. Congress, both sides, meeting the requirements to post current and future bills and changes, post them in obscure places……especially for business items on taxes and things that get attached with little or no public notice.

        In answer to your question, I would support, in full a single payer system, if everyone had exactly the same thing….everyone with no exceptions, no exemptions for anyone. That will never happen because the lawmakers and believers that push it……don’t want it for themselves.

        • Damn…need to proof read better before hitting the button……my post above should read…..”it is the most reliable source RATHER than”……. Sorry!

        • Colonel,

          I posted that the Federal employees received special compensation treatment to which I said was an exemption…it is something that the general public will not get……special tax payer compensation = exemption.

          Federal employees are not receiving special compensation or treatment. Their healthcare is funded partly by their employer – the Federal Government. Just like mine is – and so is yours.

          The same is true for Congress, their staff, and the President. Their healthcare is funded partly by their employer – the Federal Government. The ACA just requires that they purchase that insurance thru the exchange. That’s not an exemption or special treatment.

          we, the military, have now been exempted from…..yes exempted

          It’s not an “exemption” – it’s a one year waiver of certain requirements.

          Fact check….as reliable as any other post or link. Maybe less so in some things…..more so in others. Look who owns it.

          You’re thinking of FactCheck.COM. FactCheck.ORG is an independent fact checker…

          Healthcare. Org….prints exactly what the exemptions are, exactly how to apply for them….it also provides examples of approved exemptions as a guideline.

          I think you mean “”.

          Here are all the exemptions. These are not the type of things that would apply to “powerful lobbyist types” or “Pelosi’s big donors”.

          Under certain circumstances, you won’t have to make the individual responsibility payment. This is called an “exemption.”

          You may qualify for an exemption if:
          1.You’re uninsured for less than 3 months of the year
          2.The lowest-priced coverage available to you would cost more than 8% of your household income
          3.You don’t have to file a tax return because your income is too low (Learn about the filing limit.)
          4.You’re a member of a federally recognized tribe or eligible for services through an Indian Health Services provider
          5.You’re a member of a recognized health care sharing ministry
          6.You’re a member of a recognized religious sect with religious objections to insurance, including Social Security and Medicare
          7. You’re incarcerated, and not awaiting the disposition of charges against you
          8. You’re not lawfully present in the U.S.

          Hardship exemptions

          If you have any of the circumstances below that affect your ability to purchase health insurance coverage, you may qualify for a “hardship” exemption:
          1.You were homeless.
          2.You were evicted in the past 6 months or were facing eviction or foreclosure.
          3.You received a shut-off notice from a utility company.
          4.You recently experienced domestic violence.
          5.You recently experienced the death of a close family member.
          6.You experienced a fire, flood, or other natural or human-caused disaster that caused substantial damage to your property.
          7.You filed for bankruptcy in the last 6 months.
          8.You had medical expenses you couldn’t pay in the last 24 months.
          9.You experienced unexpected increases in necessary expenses due to caring for an ill, disabled, or aging family member.
          10.You expect to claim a child as a tax dependent who’s been denied coverage in Medicaid and CHIP, and another person is required by court order to give medical support to the child. In this case, you do not have the pay the penalty for the child.
          11.As a result of an eligibility appeals decision, you’re eligible for enrollment in a qualified health plan (QHP) through the Marketplace, lower costs on your monthly premiums, or cost-sharing reductions for a time period when you weren’t enrolled in a QHP through the Marketplace.
          12.You were determined ineligible for Medicaid because your state didn’t expand eligibility for Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act.

          it shows the fallacy of a universal healthcare that is not universal.

          That’s because this is NOT universal healthcare. It’s market-based healthcare with an individual mandate.

          In answer to your question, I would support, in full a single payer system, if everyone had exactly the same thing….everyone with no exceptions, no exemptions for anyone. That will never happen because the lawmakers and believers that push it……don’t want it for themselves.

          Nothing in this world works out “exactly the same thing….everyone with no exceptions”, so you’ve created an “out” for yourself right from the start…

        • …the Federal Register…But, even in our day of technology, you have to be a subscriber to it. It is never printed, in full, for everyone to get to on the internet highway.

          Hey, look what I found. It is on the “internet highway”…

    • Colonel,

      Why is the largest employer in all of the United States….exempt

      I would really like to know who is this largest employer you referred to in your post on the previous thread?

  27. Gman, I think you asked a question about the “million vet march” on Washington, DC…..of course there would not be one million ( in Washington )…… However, I know of many veterans groups that are going to local monuments in protests….so, there will be way more than one million nationwide. It will not be covered except in Washington DC. And the headlines will read something like ” Vets cannot muster one million “… For example, in Texas alone, there will be over 100,000 out on the same day. We asked for coverage from the Fort Worth Star Telegram, the Dallas Morning News, the Houston Post, and the San Antonio Courier……all have said no, it is not news worthy.

    This is the reception we will get….but it will not stop us.

    • SATIRE ALERT!!!!

      Try a mock lynching and see the coverage you get.

      • Mathius™ says:

        Try doing something other than just walking around. It’s boring and, frankly, lazy. It’s like when people change their Facebook profile pictures in support of gay rights.. “yea, it’s the least I could do”.. well, yes, it is literally the very least you can do while still technically “doing” something.

        If you have 100,000 people willing to participate, DO SOMETHING. Organize a bus trip/carpool to a district whose representative you oppose, then go door to door, neighborhood by neighborhood and tell 1/2 million people individually to their faces that their congressman is a [expletive deleted] and why you think so. Everyone wears uniform or a suit. Everyone is given the talking points and, importantly, educated on the issues. Everyone is police, respectful, and if they don’t know something, they have someone who does know come back and followup. Make sure they know when the next local election is, whose running, where they stand, and where the local poling place will be. Offer to come back and give them a ride if necessary. You want to bet you get your coverage? And, more importantly, you want to bet you get the undivided attention of that rep?

        Marches worked when the idea was new and sensational. When there was the distinct chance that the march would end in serious loss of life/property and/or a full-scale riot. When people descending on Washington/city hall was a novel spectacle. You do not have that. A march now, is just show. It’s theater and, frankly, we’ve seen this performance before.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Oh, I forgot to mention: though it presumably goes without saying since you’re vets, it’s vital to have a clear chain of command and defined roles / objectives. Military precision. You’re professionals, not a mob.

          There should be a specific “head,” a specific “press officer,” and zone-captains.

          Additionally, there need to be “subject matter experts” (let’s call them gunny’s) available – you tuck these guys away in a room somewhere with a phone and have them available for advanced follow-up as needed. If your street-level guy (let’s call him a private) tells a civvy that ObamaCare will cause him to lose his coverage and the civvy wants to know more details, he gives his phone number and then gets a call from a subject matter gunny as soon as possible. BRIEF literature is left with every civvy.

          The captains run the privates and gunny’s. Only colonels (full bird) and higher can talk to the press. The Generals run everything and are the only ones who can talk to politicians.

          The privates tell every civvy that there will be a followup lecture on this open to the public the next day. You book a hall and have the staffed by the gunny’s and generals. No one is going to show up who doesn’t already agree, but that doesn’t matter because the other people who show up are going to be the press. Importantly, no BS anywhere in any of this. Just the facts, ma’am. You tell one lie or exaggeration and get caught in it, you’ll get your nose rubbed in it, so stay on message and have backup support for everything you say. The press aren’t exactly scrupulous, but they’re more than happy to print anything where the support is handed to them on a silver platter. Give them talking points to take home with them and number to reach sources directly if they need followup.

          Huge undertaking. And a giant pain in the ass. But if you want to do something, then DO SOMETHING.

          • And what, pray tell, makes you think it is not organized? Our objective is simple. We are not politicians and we do not care what people think of Obamacare….our only objective….is a show of support at the monuments and the National Cemeteries. Our show of support is to each other and not to anyone else….it is an extended family, if you will. It is a show of support that NOONE….will close down these sites for any reason. We do not care about political talking points. We are soldiers and not politicians. And what is even better, there is no racism. Blacks, Hispanics, Whites, Asian……will all be united under one banner…..respect and honor.

            You can rest assured that we, as a voting block, know whom to support and we do so quietly without fanfare. We are used to that. The modern warriors show up in respect for the older warriors and vice versa…..we all show up in respect for the dead.

            I would recommend that on Memorial Day and the upcoming Veterans Day, go to the nearest National Cemetery and see who shows up and how many. It may be surprising.

            As to the media, you are completely wrong…they will not cover these types of things unless (1) something goes wrong and (2) unless someone they deem important shows up….like, for instance, Wendy Davis. She has indicated that she will show up at one of the sites but since it is a public area, no one will deny her entrance but no one will have anything to say to her but I am sure the press will have something to say if they follow her there….if she has the balls to show. She sunk her ship long ago in Texas with her comments about the military and the people who served. She is considered one step above Jane Fonda. If the media does wish to interview anyone, they will be directed to an information officer that will be visibly located. But that is the only reason it will be made public. The media is nothing short of a joke.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Have you considered releasing a few dozen raptors in Washington?

      Adding, what is a group of raptors called? A swarm of raptors? A heard of raptors? Probably a pack, but that doesn’t seem quite right.. A murder of raptors, perhaps?

  28. States to pay their own way to open National Parks but had to ask permission….lol. You have to be kidding. I like this….States paying their own way….who needs the Feds.

    • Gov. Brown in CA has turned down the fed offer to pay for the parks. The shut down at Yosemite alone is costing the state economy millions. How much of that is lost tax revenue? 10%? 20%? Much of that money comes from foreigners who have already invested in tickets for the trip. The Cliff House on the coast is closed. Those employees will not get paid because they are private. Such absolute utter nonsense.

      D13, I wish you and your vets well. Take lots of pictures.

  29. California bill advances to allow non-physicians to perform certain first-trimester abortion
    Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on pinterest_shareMore Sharing Services27

    By Dave Andrusko
    California Assemblywoman Toni Atkins

    California Assemblywoman Toni Atkins

    Already one of the states with the most liberal abortion laws and the least abortion clinic supervision, the California Assembly is moving closer to a vote that would widen the pool of those who can perform some first-trimester abortions to include physician assistants, nurse practitioners, and nurse midwives.

    Assemblywoman Toni Atkins (D) is the author of Assembly Bill 154. The measure would allow these non-physicians to perform early-term surgical “aspiration” abortions. (These personnel are already allowed to administer chemical abortifacients.)

    Although obliquely described in news accounts, what happens is an aspiration abortion is that a powerful suction tube with a sharp cutting edge is inserted into the womb through the dilated cervix. The suction dismembers the body of the developing baby and tears the placenta from the wall of the uterus, sucking the baby’s remains into a collection bottle.

    The bill redefines the abortion technique as “non-surgical,” according to Margaret A. Bengs in an op-ed for the Daily News.

    Democratic Assemblyman Richard Pan’s companion measure—AB 980— “would exempt clinics performing these ‘nonsurgical’ abortions from the more stringent building code standards for surgery,” Bengs wrote.

    The rationale for the move (as always) is expanding access.

    “The growing shortage of abortion providers creates a significant barrier for women’s access,” Atkins said, according to the Mercury News. “Authorizing trained health professionals to provide early abortion services removes those barriers.”

    The justification is a state pilot program created in 2007 (and recently extended to next January). Under it, 8,000 aspiration abortions have been provided by non-doctors. NRL News Today has written about the program on multiple occasions and in one analysis by Dr. Randall K. O’Bannon, critiqued a study appearing in the “American Journal of Public Health” which claimed that first trimester surgical or suction aspiration abortions can be done just as safely by nurse practitioners, certified nurse midwives, and physician assistants as they can be by doctors.

    Combining the insights of Dr. O’Bannon and Ms. Bengs we see the study (produced by researchers from the University of Southern California-San Francisco (UCSF), “America’s abortion training academy”) is woefully inadequate.

    #1. [Dr. O’Bannon] “As a group, the number of complications for the [non-physicians] were almost exactly twice (100) what they were for the abortion doctors (52). Researchers glide over this by noting that numbers of ‘major complications” were equal for both groups (a total of six–two uterine perforations, three infections, and one hemorrhage spread between the two groups). The difference, they point out, was really in “minor complications.” What were some of those “minor complications?

    They included incomplete abortions; failed abortions” retention of blood in the uterus, cases of infection, endocervical injury, anesthesia-related reactions, and uncomplicated uterine perforation”—to name just a few categories where non-physicians had many more problems than physicians.

    #2. [Ms. Bengs] “The bill’s advocates claim that because some counties don’t have an abortion provider, women must drive ‘long distances’ to get abortions, but only 1 percent of women live in those counties, according to the Guttmacher Institute. California, in fact, has one-third of the nation’s abortion providers and its abortion rate is 27 percent, far higher than the national average.”

    #3. [Dr. O’Bannon]. In fact the problems may be even larger than reported. “It should also be noted that 30.5% of the patients participating in the study never came back to fill out follow-up surveys. Researchers counted them in the study anyway. They said that 41 of those patients did contact the facility when they experienced a complication and that what they ‘discovered via medical chart abstraction’ suggested ‘a low likelihood of missing complications among this group.’ Especially in light of the low follow up rate, it is important to note that researchers give no indication that they considered an alternative explanation: that these women, rather than returning to the abortion clinic where they were injured, may have instead sought help from a local emergency room or their own personal physician.”

    How ironic at a time of Kermit Gosnell that a state—any state—would undermine some of
    the very few protections that exist for women.

    Course this was back in May-the bill has now been signed into law.

    Woo hoo for woman’s reproductive rights, of course this has nothing to do with Rights-it has to do with rules that are there to protect a woman’s actual health. Well, rules that were there.

    • We must always remember that legal abortion is the safe alternative to those back alley abortions of yesteryear. Just repeat that 10,000 times and see if it is more believable.

    • It is a done deal, Brown signed it a few days ago. He also signed the ban on assault weapons (any weapon with a detachable clip) and the ban on lead ammunition.

  30. Mathius™ says:

    Regarding dog bites by police dogs in Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department:
    “[…] from 2004 through 2012, the average was 59 bites per year, a
    substantial increase in the average total bites.”

    So far this year, 100% of victims of dog bits (by police dogs) have been either black or Latino.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Maybe they shouldn’t be so arrogant when approached by the police??

      • Mathius™ says:

        Maybe they shouldn’t be so arrogant when approached by the police??


      • So, which is it, JAC … minorities are arrogant when approached by the police or the police are the evil doers (when representing the state)?

        There was a white kid bitten by a police dog in A.C. …. he was being arrogant (admitted it) … that deserves the beating he got (plus the dog bite on the back of his neck)?

        Or is okay to let the statists and their army attack anybody who dares mouth off?

        Know what I think? You’ve got some pair of balls (on a website) 🙂

        • “Boardwalk Empire”? Seriously though, this is like that video we had here a few weeks back of the cops and the drunken woman. Individually these guys would probably never do it. As a group, they descend to a “mob” and mob psychology takes over. Not much different than that bike crew in Washington Heights was there?

    • The white population of LA, hovers around 30%. 100 % still seems too high but there is that theory in police work that blacks (mostly) have a great fear of dogs so they are used more often.

      • Mathius™ says:

        blacks (mostly) have a great fear of dogs


        • It is a police theory, not a fact. References to it that I have read go back to the ’60’s and civil rights marches in the south. I’ve also had cops tell me it. There was a piece, I think in the NY times magazine called “White dog” many years ago that talked about the training the police dogs received.

      • Mathius™ says:

        The white population of LA, hovers around 30%.

        White: 41.3%
        Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 57.5%
        Black or African American: 9.8%
        Native American: 0.5%
        Asian: 10.7%
        Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 0.2%
        Some other race: 25.2%
        Two or more races: 2.8%

        • Tell me you did not deliberately drop the part about non-hispanic whites.

          The 1990 United States Census and 2000 United States Census found that non-Hispanic whites were becoming a minority in Los Angeles. Estimates for the 2010 United States Census results find Latinos to be approximately half (47-49%) of the city’s population, growing from 40% in 2000 and 30-35% in 1990 census.

          The racial/ethnic/cultural composition of Los Angeles as of the 2005-2009 American Community Survey was as follows:[2]

          White: 41.3% (Non-Hispanic Whites: 29.4%)
          Hispanic or Latino (of any race): 57.5%
          Black or African American: 9.8%
          Native American: 0.5%
          Asian: 10.7%
          Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander: 0.2%
          Some other race: 25.2%

          Otherwise, the population totals 147% in your figures.

    • Maybe they shouldn’t be committing crimes that required cops to deploy the dogs!

      • Mathius™ says:

        What part of “presumed innocent” eludes you?

        • Mathius, do you anything about dog deployment by cops?

          • Mathius™ says:

            Very little. Because I’m white so I don’t have to worry about being attacked by police dogs, apparently.

            I would suggest that tasers are probably a better alternative 99.9% of the time.

            • Personally, I think statistics in a lot of situations, without any other information tend to make people assume things-that may or may not be true.

              • You are quite correct VH. My guess is that Mathius see’s this as racism, yet he know’s nothing about police dogs and their use.

                Mathius, granted some cops are idiots and be quite mean and violent (We’ve all seen the videos). But mostly, cops do their job well and within the law. Dogs are normally deployed to chase. They also are used when one choses to be violent with the cops. Dogs can’t use tasers (after catching the runner, and violent people are not always affected by tasers. I trained my dog (pitbull/boxer) to only bite the crotch area. That usually solves any problems with an attacker 🙂

  31. Bobby Ferguson..Kwame K’s right hand henchman..gets 21 yrs..


    Detroit led. Who’s city is next?

  32. Just A Citizen says:


    The US Park Service has a long history of police state mentality. The Reagan Administration tried to reform this “attitude” some. But when the Algorians got the power it returned.

    Todd’s experience with individual “Rangers” in public is pretty normal. Unless you happen to be standing in the wrong place or doing something they don’t like. And when then get together in private they make fun of and ridicule the “flat landers” and the “tourists”.

    Now of course this is a “generalization” and not every Park Service employee will fit the mold. But make no mistake, the CULTURE of the Park Service is one of Law Enforcement and exercising Power over the general public.

    There were studies and even a book or two written in the late 60’s or early 70’s on this topic.

    • It hasn’t even been two weeks and these people are crying the blues already? What a line of BS. Didn’t any of these morons hear of unemployment benefits? Did they not prepare for an emergency? Do they live within their means (seemingly not)? Sorry, I’m not shedding any tears!

      • Yeah, G! Why didn’t they become racist CO’s? Yeah, no tears …. tough noogies.

        Oy vey …

        • Charlie, it’s all Left Wing Bullshit. It’s propaganda and is most likely a big lie. Now two months from now, I can see people hurting some, but they still have unemployment benefits. I wonder why they never wrote about the Hostess workers who lost their jobs because of Unions? Why? because it doesn’t fit their talking points and lies!

          • G, it takes up to 6 weeks in some states to receive unemployment insurance … 6 weeks. That’s a big deal. They apply and have no income for 6 weeks. Most people (yes most) cannot afford that kind of squeeze. And not all of those who can’t afford that kind of squeeze are buying Air Jordans and smoking dope. It’s a real concern for real people.

            • Sure it is, it’s also been a common event every week since Obama took office (and before). People get laid off and fired all the time. These govt workers, who are mostly overpaid, started whining way too early in the process. I did without a paycheck for 6 weeks at the beginning of the year because the company that took over payroll is pathetic, I did not whine and did not suffer, I had a emergency backup plan, just in case.

              This is nothing more than a partisan story to help feed tha anger at the GOP, and it’s likely all BS, based on the timeliness. I don’t fall for the self pity crap the liberal media prints. Now, there are some true stories about people suffering, like the cattle farmers in South Dakota who lost the herds of cattle due to the early blizzard. But that story will be on the back page somewhere because it do it can’t be used politically.

              But you know me Charlie, I don’t want to hear people whining when their house is washed away by the ocean. They chose to live to close to it and paid the price. I don’t feel sorry for people suffering when they were told to evacuate, they made the poor decision., sucks to be them.

    • Been there, done that, So have you probably.

  33. I have a better idea. Lets just get rid of both parties and let the chips fall where they may.

    • I agree! 🙂 What good is a debt CEILING if it’s really not a ceiling?

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Found this funny comment within the many on your cited article:

      “Rick Caird , it won’t lead to impeachment because absolutely nothing would convince democrats to impeach him outside of cutting off funds to Planned Parenthood. ”

      I just had to laugh at that one, because it “feels” so true.

      • ….or their EBT card.. 🙂

        speaking of which.. I know 2 people with EBTs..and older lady who just got cut from 143/mo to 129/mo.. and a young guy, scamming big cut from $217 to $189/mo..they both just told me that yesterday.

        • Just A Citizen says:


          For the FIRST TIME in our collective lives, we have filed for UNEMPLOYEMENT benefits.

          FIRST TIME ………… It is a weird feeling.

          And as reported, if she is reimbursed for furloughed time we will have to pay back the unemployment benefits.

          The interesting part of this is the States say they don’t have the money needed because their accounts were drained. Yet the Fed employees have been paying into the system for forever. Perhaps someone has been using Fed employees to subsidize Unemployment believing that those Fed employees would NEVER become UNEMPLOYED!!

          Kind of like how they have used them to fund all the FICA programs when they don’t qualify for those programs. This would be Medicaid primarily.

  34. @Mathius. About racism. I agree that it exists and always will exist. My point was that it isn’t just whites these days. If blacks want to stop racism, they should practice what they preach. Also, the area where ones resides is a big player. Where I live, people treat each other with respect, regardless of race, now in a place like Youngstown Ohio, forget about it, racism is a daily occurrence.

    • Mathius™ says:

      All fair points.

      But again, minorities being racist doesn’t really have that much of an effect. White people being racist is catastrophic for minorities. Why? Because we have all the power. (see shih tzu / Rottweiler analogy).

      • By 2040 the white population (non-hispanic) will fall below 50%

        • Mathius™ says:

          So? Even if that’s true (it probably is), the WEALTH AND POWER will still be concentrated in the hands of Caucasians for a long time afterward.

          Median wealth of whites was 19x higher than blacks in 2009, and 15x than Hispanics.

          Even if there are more of them, the game is rigged in our favor and I see no reason to believe that that’s going to change any time soon.

          / White Guilt

          • Hey Mathius….how is your lil’ one progressing?

            Serious question for you……why do you have or indicate white guilt? ( honest question ).

          • Was reading a piece on this the other day. Pointed out that the disparity has remained and gotten worse since 1967.

            Causality is the key, still racism? Or could it have something to do with that absent father , Single Moms and an illegitimacy rate above 70%? If it is all racism, then just how exactly do we have this guy for president?

            The anything goes morality that has come about these last 40 plus years has really played havoc. It is one thing for some stupid twit in Hollywood to have a kid or a number of kids without a Dad when she can in effect hire one. Quite another thing on 141st Street and Lenox Avenue or 176th and Davidson in the Bronx.

            Without education you are going nowhere.

      • White people being racist is catastrophic for minorities.

        Can you provide something besides Left wing talking points?

      • WTF? break it down to one on one for crying out loud. Racism sucks no matter what. White guilt? Are you afraid of something? Cause I have no white guilt…Think the blacks have any black guilt?

        • Yes, break it down (not likely). Just more Left Wing BS Anita. It’s time to call it as they are 🙂

        • Mathius™ says:

          Why should they have black guilt? We’re the ones who have been messing up their lives, not the other way around.

          • Unbelievable!

          • If you have been messing up peoples lives, you should stop and you should make amends. I, on the other hand, have spent a career making, I hope, a whole lot of poor folks lives a little better, providing safe affordable, clean housing with no rats, roaches or mice. I must say though that I am glad I left when I did. This bed bug thing is unbelievable. Doesn’t just strike the poor though in NY, they run from Park Ave to the South Bronx to Riverdale and to Harlem.

          • Speak for yourself and your Liberal friends! My conservative friends and I have never engaged in any action to harm minorities. Any claim otherwise is a bald faced LIE 🙂

  35. Mathius™ says:

    Anyone care to speculate how this would have turned out if the woman were Muslim? I mean, as one commenter put it, this is the “WASP version of Allahu Akbar.”

    • Are you implying Muslims are nuts? And what the hell does “God”s a wide receiver” mean?

      • Mathius™ says:

        I’m implying that the other passengers and, specifically, the airline would have had a conniption if, instead of being a white Christian shouting about God, she had been a brown Muslim shouting about God. They would have thrown a bag over her head and locked her in a bathroom with two guards posted after strip searching her. Afterward, she would have disappeared into an unmarked black car and been whisked away to [REDACTED] where she would have been *cough* thoroughly and enthusiastically questioned *cough*. Ultimately, she would have resurfaced in Gitmo.

        And now, for some funny (this show aired August 2002):

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I am throwing the BULL SHIT flag on your entire assumption and claim on tis one.

      The guy talking already knew the situation and it destroys your claim.

      Now the REAL question is why hasn’t she been “subdued” peacefully?

      Was the plane diverted to get her on the ground??

  36. You got me all worked up Matt…had to fall back on this (newer) classic. guess what parts I want you to think about? 😉

  37. @ Mathius……..I already told you that releasing a number of Raptors in Washington would be deemed cruelty to animals…….

    But…..hmmmm….interesting question….pack o’ raptors? Not a pride, nor swarm…. They are organized and very tactical…..hmmmmm……cadre? Nah……..there is an Alpha raptor…so….a pack indicates a mob…….how about a ” force ” ? That indicates tactical thinking, leadership and cunning, intelligence….. Raptor Force?

  38. A common sense article that holds very true!

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    To all those claiming the Republicans are just throwing Tantrums with the CR and Debt Ceiling debate and believe that not raising the Debt Ceiling is somehow HOSTAGE taking.

    I ask you this ONE SIMPLE QUESTION.


    To answer the question you must research the WHY of its establishment.

    • I think the debt ceiling should be done away with. Please, libs don’t start cheering. As I recall, until Wilson and WWI, Congress authorized individual bond sales for specific projects. With the war and the associated debt, they went to the current system of authorizing Treasury to issue bonds up to a the specified ceiling. This broke the link between specific expenditures and the debt to cover the costs of the expenditure. Like many such reforms, it worked for a number of years since most legislators were cognizant that what they passed had to be paid for. Unfortunately, that reality link has been lost. We now spend freely and worry about the source of the money latter. Hence the huge debt. I suggest we go back to forcing Congress to accept their true responsibility. No more general obligation bonds. Bonds should be issued for specific projects in the future. So you want a bridge to no where, include the bond to pay for it in the legislation. You want healthcare we can’t afford, issue the bonds to fund it. I would also like to stipulate that bonds should only be issued for capital improvements, i.e. there must be a physical entity to serve as collateral for the bond such as a road, bridge, dam, etc. But this may be a bridge to far for the lefties.

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    A little more historical perspective on the Debt Ceiling debate:

  41. Just A Citizen says:


    Congratulations to you and your Longhorns. I expected the Okies to stumble some time this year, but not over Texas. Maybe the horns have found their stride finally.

  42. Wow, the Mich. – Penn State game was a nail biter.

  43. Just so we’re clear on who has been willing to negotiate.

    19 Times Democrats Tried to Negotiate With Republicans

    The GOP’s biggest talking point of the shutdown is only true if you ignore everything that happened before last week.

    To hear almost any Republican lawmaker speak in post-shutdown Washington is to hear that Democrats are refusing to negotiate to reopen the government and avert a debt default. It’s a talking point that may be selling well, but it’s only true if you ignore anything that happened before last Monday at about 11 p.m.

    Republicans think they’ve hit talking-point gold with the message, as we learned from a candid “hot mic” moment last week when Sen. Rand Paul privately told fellow Kentuckian Mitch McConnell that he didn’t think Democrats had “poll-tested” the “awful” message. ” ‘It’s my way or the highway.’ That’s what he’s saying. Complete surrender, and then we’ll talk to you,” House Speaker John Boehner told ABC News on Sunday.

    In a sense, Republicans are right. Democrats view keeping the government open and out of default as Congress’s most basic job, and the characterize anything that threatens that as “ransom,” so they say they’re not willing to come to the table until the government reopens. But, in context, the GOP’s biggest talking point of the shutdown falls apart when you consider that Democrats only started refusing to negotiate after Republicans stopped, the hour before the government shut down a week ago.

    For instance, through a Senate Democratic aide, here are all the times since this spring Senate Democrats tried to negotiate with Republicans by sending their budget to a bicameral conference committee. Every time, Republicans blocked the move:

    1. 4/23 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.
    2. 5/6 Senator Reid requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.
    3. 5/7 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
    4. 5/8 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
    5. 5/9 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator McConnell blocked.
    6. 5/14 Senator Warner asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.
    7. 5/15 Senator Wyden asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator McConnell blocked.
    8. 5/16 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
    9. 5/21 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Paul blocked.
    10. 5/22 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.
    11. 5/23 Senator McCaskill asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
    12. 6/4 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Rubio blocked.
    13. 6/12 Senator Kaine asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Lee blocked.
    14. 6/19 Senator Murray asked unanimous consent to go to conference, and Senator Toomey blocked.
    15. 6/26 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Cruz blocked.
    16. 7/11 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.
    17. 7/17 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Mike Lee blocked.
    18. 8/1 Senator Durbin requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Marco Rubio blocked.
    19. 10/2 Senator Murray requested unanimous consent to go to conference, Senator Toomey blocked.

    “For six months I’ve tried to enter into formal budget negotiations with Paul Ryan, only to be repeatedly denied permission to negotiate by Ted Cruz and the tea party,” said Senate Budget Committee Chairwoman Patty Murray, D-Wash. “Now, a week into a government shutdown that he could end at a moment’s notice, Speaker Boehner is simply trying to distract from his constantly changing list of demands.”

    The parties flipped positions Monday, the first day of the new fiscal year, when Republicans tried to finally start conference-committee negotiations just minutes before midnight. Democrats balked—”We will not go to conference with a gun to our head,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said on the floor—considering that they had been rebuffed almost 20 times beforer and that Republicans had shown no interest until it was already clear the government was closing. Last week, House Majority Leader Eric Cantor tweeted a picture of a faux conference committee, which included zero Democrats, saying, “We sit ready to negotiate with the Senate.”

    Perhaps we could have avoided a shutdown if they had been ready to negotiate before the government ran out of money.

    • I wonder if there’s a list anywhere of how many times the republicans requested that they return to regular order and the dems. refused. 4 years worth -should be a really long list

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Apparently you DO NOT understand that Reid’s efforts to go to “formal Conference” is not a NEGOTIATION. It is a GAME that he gets to play due to the Senate’s rules regarding their Conferees.

      The R’s asked to NEGOTIATE the terms and process for the Conference to avoid these games. Reid REFUSED.

      Your either playing games or simply falling for the story line your side is feeding the world.

      The who and why of where we are is far more complicated that just “they won’t negotiate”.

      • One of the things I learned was the that the R’s were asking for assurance that reconciliation would not be used for a back door tax increase. Also Reid could have brought the bill to the floor and asked that it be sent to reconciliation, however, that would require a full 50 hr debate and the possibility that amendments could be added, further debated and votes This would mean that Reid would lose control of the process and potentially the contents of the bill. Heaven forbid that the D’s would have to think for themselves and make up their own minds or even worse listen to the folks back home.

      • Perhaps we need to start farther back than April 23….like maybe right here:

        “We do not need to bring a budget to the floor this year,” Reid
        “The fact is, you don’t need a budget,” “We can adopt appropriations bills. We can adopt authorization policies without a budget. We already have an agreed-upon cap on spending.” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer

        Ryan proposed a budget..the D’s proposed a budget that no one at all could back..Ryan wanted preliminary talks to a conference to bring the two proposals closer BEFORE the conference..the Ds refused (because ‘we don’t need a budget’ to begin with)…and now we get up to speed at April 23.

%d bloggers like this: