Levin’s Liberty Amendments

Thought this would be a good discussion to start the new week.
T-Ray says: October 20, 2013 at 6:40 pm • Edit
Here are all of Mark Levin’s Liberty Amendments w/o editorial comment.

Liberty Amendment #1

SECTION 1: No person may serve more than twelve years as a member of Congress, whether such service is exclusively in the House or the Senate or combined in both Houses.
SECTION #2: Upon ratification of this Article, any incumbent member of Congress whose term exceeds the twelve-year limit shall complete the current term, but thereafter shall be ineligible for further service as a member of Congress.

Liberty Amendment #2

SECTION 1: The Seventeenth Amendment is hereby repealed. All Senators shall be chosen by their state legislatures as prescribed by Article I.
SECTION 2: This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
SECTION 3: When vacancies occur in the representation of any State in the Senate for more than ninety days the governor of the State shall appoint an individual to fill the vacancy for the remainder of the term.
SECTION 4: A Senator may be removed from office by a two-thirds vote of the state legislature.

Liberty Amendment #3
SECTION 1: No person may serve as Chief Justice or Associate Justice of the Supreme Court for more than a combined total of twelve years.
SECTION 2: Immediately upon ratification of this Amendment, congress will organize the justices of the Supreme Court as equally as possible into three classes, with the justices assigned to each class in reverse seniority order, with the most senior justices in the earliest classes. The terms of office for the justices in the first Class will expire at the end of the fourth Year following the ratification of this Amendment, the terms for the justices of the Second Class will expire at the end of the eight Year, and the Third Class at the end of the Twelfth Year, so that one-third of the justices may be chosen every fourth year.
SECTION 3: When a vacancy occurs in the Supreme Court, the President shall nominate a new justice who, with the approval of a majority of the Senate, shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Justices who fill a vacancy for longer than half of an unexpired term may not be denominated to a full term.
SECTION 4: Upon three-fifths vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate, Congress may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.
SECTION 5: The Congressional override under SECTION 4 is not subject to Presidential veto and shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court.
SECTION 6: Upon three-fifths vote of the several state legislatures, the States may override a majority opinion rendered by the Supreme Court.
SECTION 7: The States’ override under SECTION 6 shall not be the subject of litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President.
SECTION 8: Congressional or State override authority under SECTIONs 4 and 6 must be exercised no later than twenty-four months from the date of the Supreme Court rendering its majority opinion, after which date Congress and the States are prohibited from exercising the override.

Liberty Amendment #4

SECTION 1: Congress shall adopt a preliminary fiscal year budget no later than the first Monday in May for the following fiscal year, and submit said budget to the President for consideration.
SECTION 2: Shall Congress fail to adopt a final fiscal year budget prior to the start of the fiscal year, which shall commence on October 1 of each year, and shall the President fail to sign said budget into law, an automatic, across-the-board, 5 percent reduction in expenditures from the prior year’s fiscal budget shall be imposed for the fiscal year in which a budget has not been adopted.
SECTION 3: Total outlays of the federal government for any fiscal year shall not exceed its receipts for that fiscal year.
SECTION 4: Total outlays of the federal government for each fiscal year shall not exceed 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product for the previous calendar year.
SECTION 5: Total receipts shall include all receipts of the United States Government but shall not include those derived from borrowing. Total outlays shall include all outlays of the United States Government except those for repayment of debt principal.
SECTION 6 : Congress may provide for a one-year suspension of one or more of the preceding SECTIONs in this Article by three-fifths vote of both Houses of Congress, provided the vote is conducted by roll call and sets forth the specific excess of outlays over receipts or outlays over 17.5 percent of the Nation’s gross domestic product.
SECTION 7: The limit on the debt of the United States held by the public shall not be increased unless three-fifths of both Houses of Congress shall provide for such increase by roll call vote.
SECTION 8: This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after its ratification.

Liberty Amendment #5

SECTION 1: Congress shall not collect more than 15 percent of a person’s income, from whatever source derived. “Person” shall include natural and legal persons.
SECTION 2: The deadline for filing federal income tax returns shall be the day before the date set for elections to federal office.
SECTION 3: Congress shall not collect tax on a decedent’s estate.
SECTION 4: Congress shall not institute a value-added tax or national sales tax or any other tax in kind or form.
SECTION 5: This Amendment shall take effect in the fourth fiscal year after its ratification.

Liberty Amendment #6

SECTION 1: All federal departments and agencies shall expire if said departments and agencies are not individually reauthorized in stand-alone- reauthorization bills every three years by a majority vote of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
SECTION 2: All Executive Branch regulations exceeding an economic burden of $100 million, as determined jointly by the Government Accountability Office and the Congressional Budget Office, shall be submitted to a permanent Joint Committee of Congress, hereafter the Congressional Delegation Oversight Committee, for review and approval prior to their implementation.
SECTION 3: The Committee shall consist of seven members of the House of Representatives, four chosen by the Speaker and three chosen by the Minority Leader; and seven members of the Senate, four chosen by the Majority Leader and three chosen by the Minority Leader. No member shall serve on the Committee beyond a single three-year term.
SECTION 4: The Committee shall vote no later than six months from the date of the submission of the regulation to the Committee. The Committee shall make no change to the regulation, either approving or disapproving the regulation by majority vote as submitted.
SECTION 5: If the Committee does not act within six months from the date of submission of the regulation to the Committee, the regulation shall be considered disapproved and must not be implemented by the Executive Branch.

Liberty Amendment #7

SECTION 1: Congress’s power to regulate Commerce is not a plenary grant of power to the federal government to regulate and control economic activity but a special grant of power limited to preventing states from impeding commerce and trade between and among the several states.
SECTION 2: Congress’s power to regulate Commerce does not extend to the activity within a state, whether or not it affects interstate commerce; nor does it extend to compelling an individual or entity to participate in commerce or trade.

Liberty Amendment #8

SECTION 1: When any government entity acts not to secure a private property right against actions that injure property owners, but to take property for public use from a property owner by actual seizure or through regulation, which taking results in a market value reduction of the property, interference with the use of the property, or a financial loss to the property owner exceeding $10,000, the government shall compensate fully said property owner for such losses.

Liberty Amendment #9

SECTION 1: The State Legislatures, whenever two-thirds shall deem it necessary, may adopt Amendments to the Constitution.
SECTION 2: Each State Legislature adopting said Amendments must adopt Amendments identical in subject and wording to the other Legislatures.
SECTION 3: A six-year time limit is placed on the adoption of an Amendment, starting from the date said Amendment is adopted by the first State Legislature. Each State Legislature adopting said Amendment shall provide an exact copy of the adopted Amendment, along with an affidavit signed and dated by the Speaker of the State Legislature, to the Archivist of the United States within fifteen calendar days of its adoption.
SECTION 4: Upon adoption of an Amendment, a State Legislature may not rescind the Amendment or modify it during the six-year period in which the Amendment is under consideration by the several States’ Legislatures.

Liberty Amendment #10

SECTION 1: There shall be a minimum of thirty days between the engrossing of a bill or resolution, including amendments, and its final passage by both Houses of Congress. During the engrossment period, the bill or resolution shall be placed on the public record, and there shall be no changes to the final bill or resolution.
SECTION 2: SECTION 1 may be overridden by a two-thirds vote of the members of each House of Congress.
SECTION 3: Upon three-fifths vote of the state legislatures, the States may override a federal statute.
SECTION 4: Upon three-fifths vote of the state legislatures, the States may override Executive Branch regulations exceeding an economic burden of $100 million after said regulations have been finally approved by the Congressional Delegation Oversight Committee [see An Amendment Establishing How the States May Amend the Constitution.]
SECTION 5: The States’ override shall not be subject to litigation or review in any Federal or State court, or oversight or interference by Congress or the President.
SECTION 6: The State’s override authority must be exercised no later than twenty-four months from the date the President has signed the statute into law, or the Congressional Delegation Oversight Committee has approved a final regulation, after which the States are prohibited from exercising the override.

Liberty Amendment #11

SECTION 1: Citizens in every state, territory and the District of Columbia shall produce valid photographic identification documentations demonstrating evidence of their citizenship, issued by the state government for the state in which the voter resides, as a prerequisite for registering to vote and voting in any primary or general election for President, Vice President, and members of Congress.
SECTION 2: Provisions shall be made by the state legislatures to provide such citizenship-designated photographic identification documents at no cost to individuals unable to afford fees associated with acquiring such documents.
SECTION 3: Early voting in any general election for President, Vice President, and members of Congress shall not be held more than thirty calendar days prior to the national day of election except for active-duty military personnel, for whom early voting shall not commence more than forty-five calendar days prior to the national day of election.
SECTION 4: Where registration and/or voting is not in person but by mail, citizens must submit an approved citizens-designated photo identification and other reliable information to state election officials to register to vote and request ballots for voting, no later than forty-five calendar days before the primary or general elections for President, Vice President, or members of Congress. Registration forms and ballots must be returned and signed by the voter and must either be mailed or hand-delivered by the voter to state election officials. If delivered by a third party, the voter must provide written authorization for the person making the delivery and the third party must sign a statement certifying that he did not unduly influence the voter’s decisions.
SECTION 5: Electronic or other technology-based voting systems, for purposes of registering and voting in national elections, are proscribed unless a reliable identification and secure voting regimen is established by the state legislature.



  1. gmanfortruth says:

    Enjoy the new week! 🙂

  2. I’ll offer my comments:
    #1 Congressional term limits, by all means. Too many have abused the privilege of serving in Congress turning it into a lifetime career. And I do mean lifetime as in being carried out. Both parties are guilty so this should have bipartisan support. Congress was meant to be a citizen Congress not a elitist club as it has become.

    #2 We are a federal republic not a democracy. The Senate was to represent the states. It has lost that ability as Senators are not beholden to their state legislatures. The original reason for direct election was to eliminate corruption in Senatorial appointments. The corruption should have been addressed directly rather than perturbing the original structure of the republic.

    #3 Term limits for Supremes: I have mixed feeling about this. I do like having a president appoint 4 justices at one time. I would extend the terms to 18 year with one justice coming up every other year. This way one justice is appointed during the term of every congress. A two term president would only make 4 appointments unless there were retirements. As for judicial override, the 60% thresholds are too low. I would require 2/3 for both congressional and legislative overrides. This is the same level as a presidential veto override.

    #4 Balance budget: Yes we need something like this to control the uncontrolled spending. the numbers can be debated. I would add forfeiture of Congressional, Presidential, and VP pay to begin on Oct 1 and continue until a budget is passed. I like the automatic 5% sequestration clause should a budget be passed. I can see a problem during extended emergency such as war. There is not enough leeway for multi-year exceptions. Such exceptions should also require a presidential declaration of emergency or an official congressional declaration of war. I would further like to see the elimination of general purpose bonds and a return to congressional issued bonds for specific purposes. I have no problem with government borrowing money for long term capital improvement projects. Borrow to just operate the day to day activities of the government is foolish.

    #5 Taxes: The overall 7.5% of GDP spending limit with a balanced budget automatically places a cap on federal income to the same level. I have mixed feelings about income taxes. Part of me says eliminate them. The other part says I like seeing exactly how much is stolen at the end of the year. I would cap income taxes at 15%. All would pay. All income would be taxed at the same rate. I would eliminate corporate taxes and replace them with a national sales tax (not a VAT). Thus all goods whether manufactured in or out of country would be taxed. This falls under the original federal excise taxing power. The death tax should be gone.

    #6 Limits on bureaucracy: This one is long. I would certainly like to see sunset laws automatically placed on federal agencies. Three years seems short in that it will create a lot of work for Congress. I would make it 3 years for the first review, 5 years for the second and 8 years thereafter. This should allow Congress the chance to review any agency for effectiveness. I would also add a no confidence vote at 3/5 which could bring up any agency for early review. Agency regulations do need to reviewed by Congress. I am not comfortable with a select committee. It should be the entire Congress. Executive branch regulations have the effect of law. They should be voted on by Congress and signed by the President.

    #7 Commerce clause: By all means, the commerce clause should be returned to its original meaning. Too much mischief has occurred as a result of the flexible interpretation of this clause. It clearly illustrates that a “living Constitution” is not Constitution at all.

    More later.

    • Sorry, did not proof it, Please forgive the mistooks.

    • Sometimes I am slow. I just realized why the Senate has not passed a budget for the last 5 years. TARP and the Stimulus Acts increased the expenditures of the federal budget. Using CRs at the rate of the previous years spending, that rate of spending gets locked in. Thus Reid and Obama were able to lock in Stimulus level spending in the subsequent years.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        That is only partially correct.

        Remember, they have been passing individual appropriations for some agencies and using CR’s for others.

        Funny how they were willing to use “partial CR’s” in the past but three weeks ago they DEMANDED ONLY A CLEAN CR.

        The “sequestration” is now part of any CR’s, now and in the future.

  3. gmanfortruth says:

    I’ll address each one separately and hope to address them all over time.

    On #1 Term Limits, I think 12 years is too long and should be reduced to two terms (4 years) for House Reps. As far as Senators, I agree with Amendment #2 and would limit Senate members to one term.

    I think shorter terms would allow more “regular citizens” to serve in these positions. I am also of the opinion that ALL positions should be PART TIME and only deal with those issues that affect all Americans. National security, National highway system, National Parks and Monuments, Treaties with Foreign nations and Trade agreements. What else should we need them for?

    • The term limit needs to be long enough for them to learn their jobs. Effectively they are already part time since they only work 3 days a week with Friday and Monday being travel days. I would change that to 2 weeks in D.C. with a week off.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        I’m thinking part time as in 20 weeks a year, considering their limited responsibilities. I guess if we can change things, might as well change them for the better (costing much less).

  4. #8 Private Property: I agree, land owners should be compensated for loss of value due to regulations and such. I would add to this amendment that the use of eminent domain is restricted to actual physical use of a citizen’s land for public good. Condemning land just to sell it to private developers to increase tax base is not sufficient reason to seize the land. The land must be physically used for public infrastructure.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I would add that “property tax” is also illegal. Also, any land to be seized should be voted on at the State level, by the people.

  5. #9 State Amendments to the Constitution: Currently Congress can propose an amendment with a 2/3 vote followed by approval of 3/4’s of the state legislatures. I see no reason to lower the 3/4 threshold. The Constitution was instituted by the states, I see no reason why they cannot amend it w/o Congress.

  6. #10 State Nullification of Federal law: Section 1 is OK. A thirty day publication period before final passage of a bill would prevent some of the travesties we have seen lately. The public deserves the right to see what is being proposed before it is passed. Obama promised this but like all politicians, promises wisps of air coming out of a mouth. Previous attempts at state nullification involved individual states. This involves 60% of the states. If that many states object to a federal law, them maybe it should be withdrawn.

  7. #11 Voter IDs: This one I also agree with although I would add words to allow future bioID technology if supported by the state law. Voting should be one our most sacred of rights and duties. Our current system is way to lax and prone to corruption. I frequently do not understand the position of those who oppose this. We had voter registration cards back in the 60’s. IDs are now becoming universally required for many government and business transactions. The right to vote is sacred and should be guarded with jealousy by all citizens.

    • Not to hijack this particular issue but today Texas is leading the way….hopefully. This is the year that we have local elections ( JP’s, judges etc), bond elections, propositions, and Constitutional amendments. Texas holds local elections in off years. As promised, Texas requires a picture ID in order to vote. As promised, Texas told the United States Justice Department to go play in the freeway and instituted its own State program. The following PICTURE ID’s are acceptable: 1) Passport, 2) State driver’s license, 3) State issued ID, 4) Military ID. Student ID’s, employer ID’s, utility bills, social security cards, etc are not acceptable because of the fraud that is rampant with this type of proof,

      If you show up to vote and do not have a State issued ID, then you will be able to secure one, free of charge, issued immediately, provided you show up in the State or Federal data base AS A CITIZEN. If you bring your certified birth certificate, you will also be issued one. You must have proof of citizenship.

      If you have recently moved from out of state, Texas Law requires you to register in Texas within 6 months. You are ineligible to vote until you reach that 6 month period anyway.

  8. gmanfortruth says:

    While looking at theses Amendments for the discussion , without a complete change in govt, no document changes will ever hold up. Money in politics must be removed to fix govt. Once the ability to get rich is gone, then govt might actually represent the people. The big question that needs answered, how do we accomplish this?

  9. Canine Weapon says:

    It’s Bush’s fault!

  10. Glad I live in one of the states that is refusing to go along with the corrupt Federal govt. Thank you again, Gov. Walker!


  11. Mother of Four Justifies Her Abortion: “I Don’t Want This Child”

    by Dave Andrusko | Washington, DC | LifeNews.com | 10/21/13 6:26 PM

    Last week NRL News Today ran a series of stories that illustrate (yet again) the capacity of pro-abortionists to shamelessly say anything. As I re-read the stories this morning, they reminded me of a 776-word-long op-ed that appeared a while back in the New York Times written by Susan Heath. In it we see Heath pining for the “good old days.”

    Which were in 1978–five years after Roe v. Wade was decided!–a time when she was 38. Heath already had four sons and (she tells us) she’s “about two and a half months pregnant.” Five words summarize where she was at: “I don’t want this child.”

    Give Heath credit. None of the usual diversionary stuff. She writes that little babies are cute—indeed, “I delight in newborn babies with their delicate weightlessness, the curl of their small fingers around my thumb.” What’s the best thing about them now? “[T]hey belong to other people. I don’t want to bear them, feed them, bring them up, be responsible for them.”

    Put more straightforwardly, “I’ve got other things to do,” adding later by way of further clarification, she was “on a different track now.”

    And in the good old days she gets back on track by zipping down to the non-judgmental, protestor-free Planned Parenthood clinic. There Heath has the abortion which is “really not so bad; in fact it’s not as invasive as going for monthly checkups when you’re pregnant. They’re kind, they tuck me up under a blanket and say my husband can pick me up soon and take me home. I’m fine.”

    She gratefully sends PPFA a donation of several hundred dollars, and why not? “Having the abortion released me from the burden of the added mothering I could no longer undertake and allowed me to do the best mothering I could.”

    Which is an interesting almost-conclusion, because the next two paragraphs speaks volumes.

    “Two years later, I’m driving upstate by myself. I look down and think that if I hadn’t had the abortion, there would be a baby seat next to me with a small child in it, resting comfortably, knowing it would always be safe because I was in charge. It might be a girl — I would have liked to have a daughter in the family mix.”


    “But I’m not grieving over the absence; I don’t have and never have had a single qualm about not bringing that child into the world. I know many women who have grieved greatly over the children they decided not to have, and I am thankful to have been spared that agonizing sadness of guilt and regret. I also know many women who, like me, have felt only gratitude and relief at having been able to take control over their lives safely and legally.”


    On the one hand, had she not aborted the child (which she did without “that agonizing sadness of guilt and relief”) the child would have been “[R]esting comfortably, knowing it would always be safe because I was in charge.” On the other hand, she tells us she feels only “gratitude and relief” for being able to “take control” of her life how.

    Better put, by taking control of the baby’s life.

    My goodness.


    • Sounds like a good reason to me!

      Sorry VH, but you don’t get to judge another woman’s decision (or the reasons behind that woman’s decision) whether or not to terminate a pregnancy.

      • Under our currant law, I may well not be able to stop her, but I can sure as hell judge her actions.

        • Judge not lest ye be judged…

          I’m pretty sure a wiser man than I had said something to this effect.

          • Ha ha Ha -I find it funny how those who do not believe in God-Dismiss his word when it does not agree with them and use it when they “think ” it does.

            • I just don’t believe that to be the “word of God”. Doesn’t mean the words themselves aren’t insightful.

              • Then use them in context and try to figure out what they actually mean-DO not use them selectively for the sole purpose of intimidating people. I’ve seen people in church do the same thing and it is ……. pick a word -wrong will do.

              • I think that statement doesn’t need much context — the statement can (and probably should) stand on its own.

              • Of course they do as long as you know the definition of judgement.

                But lets talk about judging-you say I should not judge -Yet you judge my actions based on the fact that you know I’m a Christian-so per you I am not following the word of God not based on my understanding of his word but on yours. Yet on what basis do I have to judge you.

              • VH, I’m merely pointing out that you shouldn’t pass judgment on a stranger’s personal decision.

                To JAC’s point, what are you saying here — it is OK to pass judgment on someone’s actions? I’m personally OK with that. But I draw a distinction between judging the action and passing judgment on the personal circumstances/reasons/choices one has to make prior to taking an action. It is impossibly to truly walk in another’s shoes.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        She most certainly does get to judge.

        The JUDGING is not the issue and should never be questioned. In fact the statement that we should not judge is a rationalization of the irrational. No need to judge others or the world around you because “lest you be judged”…. Bull dookey.

        The issue or only valid question should be in the ACTION or NO ACTION taken as result of that judgment.

        I have every right to judge you as moral or immoral. I have no moral authority to do anything about it unless you attempt to harm me or someone around me.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Odd that Buck would say that, considering MLK even said to only judge people by the content of their character not the color of their skin.

  12. gmanfortruth says:

    Low info Voters? Yes, they exist. Mathius, are you sure you want to admit being from California? http://conservativevideos.com/2013/10/people-sign-fake-petition-support-orwellian-police-state-america/

    • Mathius™ says:

      “Low information voters” is code for “idiots who have unfounded opinions and feel that they have some right to push them on the rest of us.” And there are plenty of such people in every party. Would you like me to post the video of the Palin supporters who couldn’t name a single one of her policy positions?

      The other day I saw one where conservatives were asked whether they preferred the ACA or ObamaCare and why. You can guess how that went.

      I’ve seen offsetting videos of Obama supporters who.. well they’re idiots too. And, just the other day, a certain Canine posted here one such video of people blaming Bush for the government shutdown – Go watch if you need a laugh. Link.

  13. gmanfortruth says:

    Something economic that could interest many of ya’ll .

    Embry: “I’m fascinated with the silver picture for the simple reason that there seems to be well-documented evidence that demand has picked up significantly, particularly with regards to what my business parter, Eric Sprott, said in his KWN interview….

    “Industrial demand for silver remains solid, and there are compelling reasons for people who understand what’s unfolding in the financial space to be adding to their silver position because silver is so cheap. Yet the question I cannot answer is, where is the physical silver coming from to back up this paper takedown we have seen?

    I have spoken to a great many people around the world about this and I cannot get a satisfactory answer. Are they raiding the silver ETF SLV? Are there secret caches of silver which have been created that we didn’t know about that central planners have been able to dig into? What I do know is that eventually this continued abuse in the silver market is going to have an enormous impact on the price. When that day comes, if investors aren’t positioned properly it will be too late.”

    Embry added: “I am also focused in this emerging global stock market bubble. Stock markets have been stronger across the globe. The front page of the Financial Times was saying Google was at record levels, and it was great news for the world economy. I don’t think that’s the case. What we are seeing here is simply ‘bubble economics.’

    China sort of tried to reign things in in the spring, and the US kept talking about tapering. And then we got into all of these emerging market problems and interest rates in those countries began to go rocketing higher. So it became apparent that the liquidity needs in the world were extreme.

    Not surprisingly, the Chinese went back to printing money hand-over-fist and they are bubbling away once again. The Americans declined to taper and this has fed in to the markets in North America. But this is unsustainable and it will eventually lead to a bust or hyperinflation. I watch with great interest as to which of the two dire outcomes will ultimately unfold.

    The reality here is that once a nation or nations go past a certain point, there is no turning back. You have to either destroy the debt structure, which is a hard-debt deflation, or you destroy the currency by printing more and more until you see a hyperinflationary collapse. There will be no other possible outcome to this scenario other than the horror of what I just described to you. Regardless, one way or another we are looking at a frightening end to all of this.”


    • Just A Citizen says:


      Small world. I am reading Haidt’s book right now. I should say digesting it. That takes longer than just reading. The full title is:

      The Righteous Mind, Why Good people are divided by politics and religion.

      As you can see, it is more than what was mentioned in the American article.

      • I am sure there is more to it than just this snippet. It has been fun watching recent revelations that conservatives are not as dumb as advertised. The other recent study showed that TP members were more scientifically literate than their opposites much to the surprise of the liberal Prof. who got all his news from the MSM.

        Mathius has a rant on the other thread about scientifically illiterate conservatives. I take great exception to that as I am sure others here do. Rush has a schtick that he does often where he plays audio sound bites from the morning talk shows on TV. It is always amazing how they use exactly the same words to describe the political struggle of the day. It’s as if they were reading from a script. But we all know liberals are too smart for that.

        I frequently comment on letters in the local newspaper and have been accused of listening to too much Fauxnews. Since I do not get cable or satellite, I see neither Fox nor MSNBC. I did an experiment about 10 years ago with the local major metropolitan newspaper. I would read a front page above the fold article and then reread it skipping all the adjectives and adverbs. It was enlightening. The articles were decidedly skewed.

        in ’78 during the TMI event, (Three Mile Island for the youngsters), I was in Japan for two weeks. The hotel had an English paper that was a readers digest version of the US news. I was impressed with it at the time just thinking I liked the compact, fast read, fact filled aspect of it. Now I realize that what I truly liked was the lack of bias.

        • Mathius™ says:

          Mathius has a rant on the other thread about scientifically illiterate conservatives.

          To be clear, my objection is to how anti-science The Republican Party and certain influential members of the base are. Not conservatives in general.

          I do not believe the… well, I do not have evidence to support the assertion that conservatives, in general, are more anti-science than liberals in general. I suspect this is probably true, but not a hugely pronounced difference. But then again… no, nevermind, no need to pick a fight..

          That said, again, the Republican Party is dangerously anti-science.

          But we all know liberals are too smart for that.

          I have no evidence to suggest that liberals – in general – are any smarter than conservatives – in general – but I do know this for damn sure: the “liberal media” are 99.9% idiots and the conservative media are 99.9% idiots. (disclaimer: some percentage are also “rodeo clowns,” but I just lumped them all together for brevity).

          But we are better educated.

          • It is funny how the R’s are anti science and the D’s are pro science except on economic things when all the D arguments are emotional and anecdotal and the R’s based on what has worked historically. As for what passes as science, if you are referring to AGW then I would proffer that the D’s are pushing junk science to grab more control over the populace. Fighting junk science is not being anti-science.

            • Mathius™ says:

              It is funny how the R’s are anti science and the D’s are pro science except on economic things when all the D arguments are emotional and anecdotal and the R’s based on what has worked historically.

              That’s quite amusing. I’d suggest that Keynes has a much better track record than the Austrians (oooh, I stepped in it now!).

              Anyway, speaking as a business & econ major in college and an MBA with a focus on finance, economics is not science. It is an art which nobody has even remotely mastered.

              If we understood economics as a science, there wouldn’t be any recession and I could tell you what the S&P will close at next Thursday.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                I disagree with your final conclusion. If we understood economics as a “science” it would only mean that it would allow us to understand things, not necessarily prevent or control things.

                Physics informs our understanding of the Universe, but it does not allow us to control the universe.

                Besides, much of economics is Math and Statistics.

                Keynes has NO TRACK RECORD. But neither do the Austrians.

            • Mathius™ says:

              As for what passes as science, if you are referring to AGW then I would proffer that the D’s are pushing junk science to grab more control over the populace. Fighting junk science is not being anti-science.

              I know AGW stands for Anthropogenic Global Warming, but everytime I see it, I can’t shake the gut reaction: Al Gore Warming. Is this just me?

              Anyway, I don’t know about global warming – I’m no expert. All I can do is rely on the judgement of experts. And the preponderance of scientists in the salient fields is overwhelmingly supportive of the idea that global warming exists and that it’s caused by humans.

              Could they be wrong? Sure.

              Could it be the biggest conspiracy the world has ever known? Sure.

              Could it be group-think? Sure.

              Could they be right? Sure.

              Could it be less-bad than they think? Sure.

              Could it be worse than they think? Sure.

              Could we come up with a new technology tomorrow that obviates the whole mess? Sure.

              But I don’t have the answers and, here’s the important bit: neither do you. We are not experts in the field. We do not have the time, energy, skills, raw data, et cetera to yield independent expert opinions. We have to, therefore, rely on the experts.

              Just like we rely on the experts in everything else science-related. I’m not going to go out and build my own particle collider to see for myself if the Higgs Boson is real. I’m just going to take the published and peer-reviewed scientific consensus’s word for it.

              If you want to call it junk science, that’s your prerogative, but I want my leaders to be swayed by the prevailing opinions of the science community, thank you very much.

              • There was a time when I believed as you do. I lost it when I realized that science and academia, like so many other fields has been polluted by money and politics. Certainly there must always have been intrusions in the past but not to the extent I see now. The vitriol expressed when a scientist breaks with the herd is astounding. Must be akin to what the flat earthers said to Columbus, the religious zealots said to Darwin, or the town fathers to the people of Salem. This is not the scientific method I was introduced to in Freshman biology in High School.

                The purpose of Science is to question everything in order to provide an explanation and a better understanding. Over the years theories have emerged, been embraced and then shot down. AGW refuses to allow anyone to question it without being drummed out of the scientific community. Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the money for research is directed at one side of the argument ignoring the other.

                Short of the eradication of half the human population on this planet there is nothing that can be done to stop what is happening if in fact it is happening for the reason stated. Look at Haiti, my God! Look at Haiti!

              • Mathius, you may accept consensus as science but I do not. For your information I do professionally work with infrared spectroscopy, radiation physics and numerical modelling. I have published high resolution IR spectra of CO2 and other molecules. The numerical tools they use are partial least squares regression and principle component analysis. To a physicist, these are eigen vector, eigen value problems. My company uses these tools to make predictions of physical properties of chemicals and fuels many of which must meet EPA regulations. I am a member of the ASTM and have helped develop standards around this technology. So Mathius, I do have credentials to speak on the subject.

                Any model developed using PLS or PCR regression must be validated. That is it must predict future data accurately. For those models to entirely miss the last decade and half means they are not validated. Hence they are worthless as predictors. They may be useful for studying the sensitivity of various parameters but they are not robust enough to base any economic decisions on. This is fundamental. While these climate scientist may believe with their whole heart that AGW is real and a danger, they have not scientifically proven it. When the scientists who have not proven their case start lobbying for political action, I call it junk science.

  14. What is the purpose of insurance? One buys insurance to cover catastrophic losses. You buy home owner’s insurance to cover a fire, severe storm damage, or other catastrophes such as a liability suit. You do not buy it to replace a washer in a faucet, to replace the roof when it is worn out, to repaint or do other routine maintenance on the house. One buys auto insurance to cover liability and collision, if the car is worth significantly more than the deductable. You do not buy it to change the oil, rotate the tires, tune up the engine, or even buy new tires. Why is this?

    Simple, routine maintenance would be 2 to 3 times more expensive if the insurance company was involved. Your painter or mechanic would now have to bill the insurance company plus supply any supporting documents to prove the repair or service was necessary. Then he waits for a check from the insurance company. If that check is not for the full amount, he then has to bill you. There is a time value to money plus the bookkeeping and correspondence costs money. Hence the $25 oil change now becomes $40. The insurance company has lots of bookkeeping and other expenses as well to review and service these bills. Since they also like to make a profit, they add at least another $20 to the cost of the oil change and pass it back to you in a higher premium. The net result is you pay $60 for a $25 oil change.

    When you buy insurance, you are gambling that you will need it and that eventually you will collect more from the insurance company than you paid them using the net present value of the premiums. If not, you are better off investing the money. Now you are a sample of one, so numbers are not on your side. For the insurance company, they have statistics and numbers that favor their side of the bet. They are betting that you will not need their service, will die before you need it or if you do need it, that they have collected from enough others who don’t need it to cover their loss with you.

    If you have an old car, you do not need collision. You have the option of purchasing the insurance options you need or most likely can use. With the ACA, this is no longer the case in health insurance. Everyone now must purchase maternity care, contraceptive services, annual checkups, etc. Now for someone my age, the first two are a moot point. I have no need of either. I might need and use the latter. However, since it is billed through insurance, like the oil change example above, I am going to pay a premium for it. Why? Should not routine service checks of the human body be paid for by the owner just like oil changes? It would be cheaper in the long run.

    On another note, when was the last time anyone here ever saw an itemized bill from a hospital? I have not seen one in over 20 years and it is not because my family has not used hospital services.

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    I have posted before my opinions about the connection between Marx, early socialists, Bismark’s socialism the Fabian Socialists and the Progressives which were the forefathers of European Fascism.

    We have for a hundred years been dealing with the ideas and programs put forth by these early thinkers and ACTIVISTS. Things such as “Universal Healthcare” for example.

    So I thought you would find the following REASONS included in the Fabian’s early “ideas” including Universal Health Care. And don’t miss the role of “imperialism” and the distaste for classical “Liberalism”.

    Early Fabian views[edit]

    The first Fabian Society pamphlets[9] advocating tenets of social justice coincided with the zeitgeist of Liberal reforms during the early 1900s. The Fabian proposals however were considerably more progressive than those that were enacted in the Liberal reform legislation. The Fabians lobbied for the introduction of a minimum wage in 1906, for the creation of a universal health care system in 1911 and for the abolition of hereditary peerages in 1917.[10]

    Fabian socialists were in favour of reforming Britain’s imperialist foreign policy as a conduit for internationalist reform and a welfare state modelled on the Bismarckian German model; they criticised Gladstonian liberalism both for its individualism at home and its internationalism abroad. They favoured a national minimum wage in order to stop British industries compensating for their inefficiency by lowering wages instead of investing in capital equipment; slum clearances and a health service in order for “the breeding of even a moderately Imperial race” which would be more productive and better militarily than the “stunted, anaemic, demoralised denizens…of our great cities”; and a national education system because “it is in the classrooms…that the future battles of the Empire for commercial prosperity are already being lost”.[11]

    In 1900 the Society produced Fabianism and the Empire, the first statement of its views on foreign affairs, drafted by Bernard Shaw and incorporating the suggestions of 150 Fabian members. It was directed against the liberal individualism of those such as John Morley and Sir William Harcourt.[12] It claimed that the classical liberal political economy was outdated, and that imperialism was the new stage of the international polity. The question was whether Britain would be the centre of a world empire or whether it would lose its colonies and end up as just two islands in the North Atlantic. It expressed support for Britain in the Boer War because small nations, such as the Boers, were anachronisms in the age of empires.[12] In order to hold onto the Empire, the British needed to fully exploit the trade opportunities secured by war; maintain the British armed forces in a high state of readiness to defend the Empire; the creation of a citizen army to replace the professional army; the Factory Acts would be amended to extend to 21 the age for half-time employment, so that the thirty hours gained would be used in “a combination of physical exercises, technical education, education in civil citizenship…and field training in the use of modern weapons”.[13]

    The Fabians also favoured the nationalisation of land rent, believing that rents collected by landowners were unearned, an idea which drew heavily from the work of American economist Henry George. LET ME ADD, MARX INCLUDED THE SAME THING IN HIS ECONOMIC TREATISE.

  16. Had to bring forward

    Now, on the lighter side……………..picture this:

    (Eerie sounding music in background, and a Jack Nicholson voice, in his best ” Shining ” narration)

    “There is a fifth dimension beyond that which is known to man. It is a dimension as vast as space and as timeless as infinity. It is the middle ground between light and shadow, between science and superstition, and it lies between the pit of man’s fears and the summit of his knowledge. This is the dimension of imagination. It is an area which we call the SUFA Zone” .

    Opening scene: Mathius playing the air guitar to Stairway FROM Heaven…..yes, I said From and not TO….sporting long DPM dreadlocks and a nifty Jack Sparrow hat, trying to fashion the words “YO HO” to his guitar…..a half empty gallon of Red Bull sitting beside him complete with long straw……

    Buck, sitting on stool, staring absent minded at the bottom of a coffee cup wondering what in the hell Mathius and D13 just gave him trying to understand the constitutionality in a cup O’ Decaf…….

    Gman, staring into a full length mirror trying to decide which conspiracy theory he is going to come up with next, while trying to remember his venison recipe and wondering why the deer he claimed tastes like turkey…

    JAC, standing on the porch, staring intently at the Western sky and the mountains in the background, shaking his head wondering what D13 was up to in his postings about health care…..and then trying to decipher exactly what he meant when he said…read it carefully.

    VH, suddenly butt stroking the TV with her shotgun, mumbling something about the damn MSM.

    Stephen, sitting on couch, trying to figure out the 60′s and what happened. Woodstock still reeling in his mind asking where the “burn the bra” campaigns disappeared to….

    T Ray, very quietly rewriting the Constitution, putting his new cabinet together, trying to figure out how to tax the lawyers to pay for everything.

    Anita, looking hot, in her new miniskirt, looking at VH……silently thinking..take THAT !

    Todd, in the corner, banging his head over and over again against a plaster wall……mumbling…”What am I doing here”…….

    Dmurf, murph, or smurf…….mixing blue paint, looking for her air brush…laughing out loud at everybody at how outlandish they are…..really?

    And D13….in face paint, camos, black head bandana, trying to look unobtrusive, sharpening his K Bar, cleaning is CAR15 w detachable M4 barrels w/silencer, Walther PPK .380 in his boot and a 45 ACP on his hip, night vision goggles strapped to his forehead…eye-ing the entire room…………………

    And you thought SNL had something on us……

    • Oh, and the reason Charlie is not mentioned….he is still on Pluto snorting his Plutonian dust mites…

    • Hee hee-One and all should note that D13 gave me a gun 🙂 And Kathy -she must be out for a run with a gun and a baby on her hip.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Your “made up” conspiracy theory has some huge teeth too it as well. It seems Sebelius (HHH head) wanted a different contractor than was used for the Obamacare website. Sebelius fought tooth and nail to be politically correct and wanted to hire the computer folks who design and run the gay porn websites on the net. Hew argument stems from the fact that those websites always work and are efficient in providing the wanted content in a timely manner. In fact, Sebelius states that she has never had a problem on a gay porn site, as well as regular porn sites, all of which work far better than the Obamacare site.

      Chris Mathews has spoken up in support of Sebelius and suggested the govt use Knobjob LLC, The builders of his favorite gay porn site.

    • I think I have just the right shade of blue mixed now….where DID that airbrush go?



      I can’t wait for scene 2!

  17. Just A Citizen says:

    Left wing contradictions, shout out to Buck for this one.

    We should NOT JUDGE the personal decisions of others.

    But we should PAY FOR those decisions via Welfare and Universal Healthcare.

    • Glad I could help you out there JAC. At long last it seems you are finally getting it! 🙂

      • Just A Citizen says:


        I may be dense, but not impenetrable. 🙂 back at ya.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Along my search for greater understanding, please explain WHY someone’s inability to purchase insurance is supposed to become MY PROBLEM.

        It they cannot afford a car that is NOT my problem. Or a tv or a phone or whatever.

        WHY is someone’s poor health supposed to become MY PROBLEM? There poor house condition is not my problem, nor the condition of their car, nor their dog.

        The key principle in Traditional Liberalism was the concept that we should not IMPOSE our Will on others. Especially by using force.

        Yet is that not exactly what the supposed “liberal” is doing when they claim I MUST include the sick strangers needs in my life planning and action? Their DESIRE for health care has not become MY PROBLEM. They are imposing their will upon me.

  18. Just A Citizen says:


    Brought forward as part of the Amendment discussion.

    Mathius™ says:

    October 22, 2013 at 8:01 am • Edit

    However, there needs to be a means to review and overturn them when they become part of the problem.

    The Supremer Court? The Even-More-Supreme Court?

    Sorry, there is a way to overturn them when they become part of the system. It’s called a Constitutional Amendment. As you know, it’s very hard to pass one of those.

    Are you suggesting that it should just be much easier to override the Court?

    Perhaps a simple majority should do it?

    Then what’s the point of having a Court?

    Mathius: Good question. Perhaps the Court should NOT RULE on Constitutional matters.

    The Court is the WEAKEST link in our system. The Executive is the second. That is if you support the notion that the desired system is a Constitutional Republic, that being Representative democratic republic.

    It worked for awhile when the Citizens and the Legal Profession took their fiduciary responsibility seriously relative to Const. Legal matters. As with all things, TIME has resulted in many changes. The field of law is no different.

    So the appointment of Judges by an Executive has become pretty much a POLITICAL and thus “ideological” matter.

    I get a kick out of the left whining about how the “conservative” judges rule. Yet you get someone like Roberts supporting the ACA “TAX”.

    WHEN did you ever see one of the leftist Judges part with their party line? Roberts ruling was only important because the 4 lefties stayed true to their left wing TRAINING.

    Perhaps a majority of Both Houses could over turn.

    Perhaps a vote of 50 State “legal representatives” who had been appointed by their “legislatures”.

    Issues of Constitutionality should be put as close as possible to the PEOPLE. So I lean more towards a planned means of State nullification. After all, part of our problem is the Federal branches acting in concert against the Constitution. It the Checks and Balance actually existed we wouldn’t see rational such as Rights are subject to “govt having a compelling interest” in violating those rights.

  19. Of course Obama “won” but methinks all this stuff being trotted out now about the mess-up in the computer system and beloved rodeo clown leader repeatedly telling everyone (six times I believe) that if you did not get a plan because somehow you were unable to access registration, you would not be penalized sounds awfully like a one year delay in the individual mandate.

    Hey, Conservatives Republicans, if this keeps up, get onto it!

    Mantra for Cruz:

    “We won! he gave us the delay in the mandate”

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    Re the Obama Care Computer programming debacle.

    What could possibly go wrong with such a program:

    “A review of internal architectural diagrams obtained by the AP revealed the system’s complexity. Insurance applicants have a host of personal information verified, including income and immigration status. The system connects to other federal computer networks, including ones at the Social Security Administration, IRS, Veterans Administration, Office of Personnel Management and the Peace Corps.”

    This was taken from a HuffPo article. That same article claims that the software programmers saw RED FLAGS for months. But they were afraid to criticize for fear of losing their jobs/contracts.

    When Management establishes a Culture of CONTROL and INTIMIDATION this is what happens. Employees who can prevent disaster but are AFRAID to speak out.

    • Mathius™ says:

      Something this huge is always a major headache.

      Remember, I’m an IT guy (sort of, anyway), so I do have some perspective. (note: I do not claim to be an expert, just relatively knowledgeable by lay standards).

      A major launch like this should have (obviously) gone a lot better. There are, however, inevitably going to be small-to-moderate hiccups. The fact that this is (apparently) a boondoggle is not so much “inexcusable” as it is “something that probably could have been avoided with some better controls.” From everything I’ve seen, it appears the media narrative is overblown (what else is new?) despite the fact that there were in fact some moderate-to-serious problems.

      You have to understand the scale and scope of what this system is trying to do. This is a huge, enormously complicated and intricate coding exercise. This is like designing the Empire State Building in blue-prints and then flipping a switch to summons it into existence and hoping the whole thing just works out right and that you don’t need to tweak anything. Test environments are great and all (and developers are always “seeing red flags” everywhere), but the proof is in the pudding. Unless you do a small-scale limited roll-out, you’re going to get hit in the face over something. It is inevitable. Name for me one major launch without an beta where everything went flawlessly. Just… it shouldn’t have gone quite as badly as happened here. This was a step worse than should have happened, but not nearly as terrible as people are making it out to seem.

      And, it’s worth noting, that a retroactive overhaul of a live system is a huge pain in the ass. Seriously. It’s like trying to tune your car’s engine while driving on the freeway.


      All that said, I’d just like to add that the loads experienced on T+0 were massively beyond any predictions. In fact, they were so massively beyond predicted loads that it’s hard to escape the conclusion that the system was the victim of malicious attacks such as DoS. I can’t say that definitively and anyone who does either has much more information than is public, or they’re talking out of their hindquarters. But it does seem highly probable.

      Meanwhile, of course, it should be remembered that, attacks or not, the system should still have been robust enough to handle the load. We can, however, give it some credit for mitigating circumstances.


      Conclusion: Bad, but not sooooo bad. 4/10.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        It was reported last night by AP that the system CRASHED at around the first 2000 visitor.

        That would of course mean that the VOLUME was not the problem.

        So if the programmers knew there were problems and no doubt some managers did as well, why not step up weeks ago and announce a “DELAY”?

        • Mathius™ says:

          I don’t think delay was really an option.. Politics and all, you know..


          You’re really showing a profound lack of appreciation for the process of setting up a launch like this. My boss once told me that all I do is push a button (referring to a program I wrote to generate highly customized reporting containing conservatively 500k lines of code accessing a dozen data-sources and probably another 1/2 million datapoints and written over the course of the last five years, growing organically with creeping featurism and zero source control) – he seemed to think that all there was to it was just “make it work” or “tell the machines to do their job.” There is, in my code an highly disconcerting number of failure points despite a plethora of error handlers. If I start to think about the flaws, my eyes go cross and I have to fight the urge to punch my monitors until I bleed.

          IT IS NOT SO SIMPLE. This seems to be your position and I’m telling you that it’s horribly flawed. This is a MASSIVE undertaking of unfathomable complexity. If you’ve never participated in the design of a large-scale computer program or website, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I have just enough exposure to this world to appreciate how truly insane it really is.

          There are ALWAYS serious warning flags. You play wack-a-mole as best you can. If you wait for perfect bullet-proof code, you’ll be waiting until the sun explodes. The number of people truly capable of writing such code could probably be counted on one hand – after a lawnmower accident. Beyond that, the real red flags are the ones that nobody saw coming. It’s when some idiot user enters a letter in a numeral field and the whole thing catches fire because of one stupid little memory leak. It’s when a programmer used the variable j instead of i in some tiny little sub-routine, but the issue only arises in very select cases, but locks up the whole database when it does.

          The crash at 2,000 visitors was probably a bottleneck issue with the database and was obviously resolved quickly and easily because hundreds of thousands / millions of other people were able to get on (even if their experiences were slow/glitchy) over the course of the day. The general malaise and this glitch are almost certainly separate issues. (probably many, many, many separate issues).

          That would of course mean that the VOLUME was not the problem.

          Again, I can’t say for sure that you’re wrong.

          But you’re almost certainly wrong.

          That doesn’t rule out, say, an architecture issue (it probably has that too), but it is certainly exacerbated by the volume. If this is at play, then just adding more servers won’t help (much). I’ve seen one report that suggested that hitting enter causes 90-something files to go back and forth between the server and the user, which would amount to basically amplifying volume even more.



          It should have been rolled out state-by-state with small-scale beta. They should have controlled the hype rhetoric setting expectations more reasonably.

          There are number of issues at play here which (almost certainly) include volume, architecture, glitchy programming, a lack of beta, weak testing protocols, unreasonable expectations, and the fact that the administration is not a software company. And, of course, politics.

          Also, lest we forget, probable hack / DoS attacks.

          Again, all things considered: 4/10

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Why all the problems? That’s simple! KARMA 🙂

            • Mathius™ says:

              Blame Karma all you like, I hope you got something out of the above dissertation.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Yes, I did. Seems the govt should have went with smaller websites in each state rather than the grand disaster they have now. Funny how Facebook can have millions and millions of posts and pictures and games etc, and don’t have near the problems. Now, i’ll guess it was the company who built it that’s at fault. Do you agree?

              • Mathius- read your whole dissertation above, very well put….. and you said in part:

                “IT IS NOT SO SIMPLE. This seems to be your position and I’m telling you that it’s horribly flawed. This is a MASSIVE undertaking of unfathomable complexity. If you’ve never participated in the design of a large-scale computer program or website, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. I have just enough exposure to this world to appreciate how truly insane it really is.”

                But websites like Amazon and Ebay (just to name a couple) have all the same issues. Obviously, ANY website hoping to meet the needs/wants of a national clientele would have to address all those issues, yet you stated them almost as though the Ocare website is having to blaze some sort of new trail.

                So….why IS this government website such a failure so far?

                Wait…I answered my own question….IT’S THE GOVERNMENT trying to do what private enterprise has already done for so many years.

                The government is proving yet again why so many Americans don’t want…..

                ……wait for it……..

                the GOVERNMENT…..handling their healthcare. If they can’t run the VA efficiently, and they can’t even launch their own website with any success, what makes anyone think that the whole healthcare system can be run by them with ANY type of efficiency, financial or otherwise?

                The problems of healthcare in the private sector need to be addressed, for sure….but this is yet more evidence (overwhelming, in my opinion) that the government is NOT THE ANSWER, and is not a “step in the right direction” at all.


              • Mathius™ says:

                But websites like Amazon and Ebay (just to name a couple) have all the same issues. Obviously, ANY website hoping to meet the needs/wants of a national clientele would have to address all those issues, yet you stated them almost as though the Ocare website is having to blaze some sort of new trail.

                Funny how Facebook can have millions and millions of posts and pictures and games etc, and don’t have near the problems.

                Facebook started as a tiny rollout to a limited number of college campuses. It featured a fraction of the capabilities it currently possesses. It expanded, gradually, campus by campus until it was well enough established that it could support a nation-wide rollout – YEARS after its initial launch.

                Amazon started as a boutique book seller website and similarly expanded and expanded. eBay.. well I don’t know the history of eBay off the top of my head, but I’d venture a guess it followed a different path.

                yet you stated them almost as though the Ocare website is having to blaze some sort of new trail.

                Every new website (on this scale) is blazing a new trail. These things are not cookie cutters. If they were, any yahoo could have done it and there wouldn’t have been any issues with the launch.

                There are millions of problems to solve, logistics to figure out, hardware, software, human-elements, and more. It’s not to say that there’s no precedent, but it’s certainly a new trail. I think my skyscraper analogy was apt – just because someone has already built a skyscraper doesn’t mean that it doesn’t present novel challenges when you build a new one. Maybe the climate is different, or the budget, or the materials, or the regulatory environment, or the client demands, et cetera. Yes, you can look at other skyscrapers, but ultimately, you have to build it yourself from the ground up and solve all the new problems.

                So….why IS this government website such a failure so far?

                It’s not.

                It’s not a “great” launch to be sure. But it’s not a failure either. That’s media perception. It’s a 4/10 in reality. The truth is that they should have managed expectations better and they should have rolled out slowly. Had they done those two things, we wouldn’t be having this conversation right now.

                Wait…I answered my own question….IT’S THE GOVERNMENT trying to do what private enterprise has already done for so many years.

                That’s not fair.

                The government can do lots of things competently.

                I don’t expect a government website to have a beautiful flawless interface like a private company. Private companies are in competition with each other for users. Government websites are a service without competition and a different goal – to provide said service. It’s why they all look like they were designed in the early 2000’s. They just aren’t going to spend the money the same way as private sites, nor should they.

                I do expect their website to fundamentally work and not be a huge pain in the ass. That said, they clearly have some ways to go, but you make it seem like they should have conjured a Facebook/eBay/Amazon level site out of thin air for a full-scale launch and got it perfect on day one – that’s just not remotely plausible.

                Private companies have the same growing pains and I think you’re deliberately ignoring that.

                the GOVERNMENT…..handling their healthcare. If they can’t run the VA efficiently, and they can’t even launch their own website with any success, what makes anyone think that the whole healthcare system can be run by them with ANY type of efficiency, financial or otherwise?

                That’s a different question. Launching a website is not so easy and I can speak to that. If they had got it right out of the gate, I would have been stunned.

                As for handling healthcare – well, this isn’t a healthcare provider, now is it? It’s a place where PRIVATE COMPANIES can offer up their services to PRIVATE CITIZENS and the government is just playing matchmaker.

                But, to your point, the government does have some history running healthcare with.. mixed results. Remember, they run medicare too, and people seem pretty fond of that.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                The government can do lots of things competently.

                Now that there is quite funny 🙂 Medicare and the VA are ripped with corruption and mismanagement. There is NOTHING the government does that is Competent, less the military.

              • “The government can do lots of things competently.”

                Agree with G…..only one….the military.


              • “Remember, they run medicare too, and people seem pretty fond of that.”

                There is rampant fraud with medicare….people are (in my opinion) more afraid to lose it than fond of it, since it is the only game in town for those over 65. By that, I mean that all other health insurance becomes secondary at age 65 whether you like it or not.

                By the way….does anyone know the answer to this…..when members of Congress turn 65, do they also go on Medicare? Or do they have some special medical coverage that exempts them from it?


          • Just A Citizen says:


            I am not selling short the complexity at building the Obama Care system.

            But here is the thing.

            First of all WHY did they have to have a National INTEGRATED system with all phases connected? While not an IT engineer I have had my share of IT data base development and use experiences.

            Those of a single federal agency took almost ten years to get working smoothly and they didn’t combine interagency data.

            Which leads to

            Second, they had THREE years and MILLIONS UPON MILLIONS of dollars spent to get it designed and open.

            Now given the first point, why did they create a three year deadline?? Why make it so complex given the three year window.

            Given the complexity how many more millions is it going to take.

            This morning I heard they spent 4 times what it took to design and launch the I-phone. Not a good comparison I would say, regarding integrated data bases. BUT, the complexity of designing the phone, getting it to work and making sure it was delivered and worked once sold??

            Note Buck’s experience. WHY should anyone have to do anything except ID the STATE they live in to get a summary of the plans and do cost comparisons???

            HINT: This Administration and the Dem Party are DATA MINERS. They LIVE BY PERSONAL DATA. Obama’s Presidency DEPENDED upon PERSONAL DATA.

            Remember your wager over the fingerprints showing up in the “hacked” category? Care to wager on the personal data collected by the Obama Care processes??

            • “WHY should anyone have to do anything except ID the STATE they live in to get a summary of the plans and do cost comparisons?”

              While I agree you shouldn’t necessarily need to verify ID until after you have chosen a plan you wish to purchase, you would need something more than simply your state to get plans and costs — you would at least need to enter dates of birth.

              • Just A Citizen says:


                What does your birth date have to do with anything?

                I thought the plan options were the same for EVERYONE in the exchanges.

                By the way, the reason for the disparity in pricing experience is probably due to the STATE in which the applicants are located.

                Some have few to ONE Insurance Company left in the exchanges. Some don’t have the Medicaid options or as Texas are doing their own system.

                The FAILURE of this system is reflective of, and due in part to, the Fascist Progressive mentality. CENTRALIZE everything under Fed Control.

                If you step back and think about how our existing insurance systems work, all the Feds needed to due was create some web pages for the selected Insurance companies to use.

                The Feds only needed a page with the Company contact information for each state.

              • Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t believe my rate is the same as that for someone 30 years my senior.

                If it is the same regardless of age, then I agree — state and number of ppl to be covered should be sufficient to get you into the marketplace to view plans and prices.

              • Google is my friend. From an article on the ACA:

                “…if you’re buying individual health insurance (not through an employer) your specific rate will be based on your age and zip code…”

            • Mathius™ says:

              This morning I heard they spent 4 times what it took to design and launch the I-phone.

              Oh, I would very sincerely doubt that..

              Unless you’re using some really funky logic like counting the entire salary of anyone who touched the project etc, the rent of entire buildings where a single server is being housed, the costs of the underlying program (as opposed to the website launch itself), and that kind thing, you’re not going to be way short. Even taking into consideration the cost of hardware and government waste, you’re just on the wrong order of magnitude.

              ::some googling::

              ::reading Forbes article::

              ::digging deeper.. WSJ article::

              ::digging deeper.. USASpending.gov::

              I am not able to even remotely substantiate the claims in this article. 600MM for a website is a f*ckload of money – that is Facebook kind of money – that is Google kind of money. Sunlight says “I think my guesses err on the over-inclusive side. Even so, if you add them up, it’s about $70 million” before going on to lambaste the lack of transparency in government spending. That’s a pretty huge disparity.

              I guarantee that you number is massively inflated. There’s just no friggin’ way.

              Still $70mm is a lot of money, but when you consider what they’re trying to do with it, I think we’re not completely out of the ballpark of “reasonable” for a major website launch.

      • JIMMY KIMMEL, HOST: President Obama’s new national health care program has been beset by a number of problems with the website. There are a lot of reports of error messages and instances of the Healthcare.gov website freezing up. Looks like their IT guy may have been in the IT Party. But they claim the problems are being caused by an unexpectedly large number of people trying to log on at the same time. Which is, you see, this is what happens when we don’t outsource to India. Things get screwed up. [Laughter]

        They’re saying if you are in need of healthcare, you have two choices: you can wait for them to get the site fixed or you can enroll in medical school, graduate, and then just take care of yourself which would probably be faster. [Laughter and applause]

        It is interesting, though, I find it fascinating that our national healthcare website barely functions and yet every single porn site in the world works like a charm. [Laughter and applause]

        President Obama addressed these issues in a speech this morning. He said there’s no excuse. He said he’s frustrated and then this happened.


        PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA: To lift from the American people the crushing burden of unaffordable healthcare. To free families from the pervasive fear, that one illness. [Turns to see woman about to faint.] I got you. You’re okay. This happens when I talk too long.

        (END VIDEO CLIP)

        KIMMEL: Well, there you go. Now that’s ObamaCare. As long as you get sick in the presence of the president, you’re covered. [Laughter and applause]

        The president also reminded that there are other ways to sign up. You don’t have to go online. You can enroll over the phone and that’s actually very easy.


        OPERATOR: Hello and welcome to Healthcare.gov, the place where you can learn about signing up for affordable healthcare. Your application is very important to us. Right now there are 8 million people ahead of you in line. Your estimated wait time is forever.

        (END VIDEO CLIP)

        KIMMEL: It would be ironic to die while waiting on hold for health insurance, right? And who wouldn’t want to die ironically?

        Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2013/10/22/kimmel-healthcaregov-barely-functions-yet-every-single-porn-site-worl#ixzz2iTPr1wjf

  21. gmanfortruth says:

    @Mathius. Low info voters, for both sides, probably have no idea why the support one candidate over the other. Take away the R and D designation, they probably wouldn’t vote 🙂

  22. gmanfortruth says:
  23. Just A Citizen says:


    Re: Your posting of the Forbes article on the history of Individual Mandate last evening.

    First, excellent find. Fits well with the Wiki article I posted.

    Second, let me paraphrase the jist of the Forbes article. Which also fits my discussion of why we are making the wrong arguments.

    Heritage developed Individual Mandate because they got caught up trying to develop “alternatives” to the LEFTS proposals. Thus they got trapped in the Lefts game.

    Note how the issue begins with Reagan signing the law forcing medical care, which is leftist driven, then creates a problem which requires further “tweaking”, more leftist behavior, eventually resulting in Individual Mandate.

    Had they IGNORED the LEFT’s game and started from SCRATCH they would probably have arrived at their current point a decade ago.

    • As Brian Cates noted at Big Government:

      They repeatedly lied to the country about keeping plans and keeping doctors and premiums being lower, knowing full well the entire time that this would not be the case.

      But by the time the public figured this out, it would be too late. The law would have already passed and be in force, and millions of people will have had their insurance plans ripped from their fingers before they could even protest about it.

      As I discussed in this previous column, Obama and the Democratic Party knew they had to deliberately mislead as many Americans as possible about what the ACA would do to their health insurance plans in order to pass the bill.

      President Obama asked the country to trust him when he repeatedly promised it the ACA wouldn’t affect people who liked their current plans and wanted to keep them. He performed perhaps the biggest political dirty trick ever pulled on the American people and he did it openly and brazenly.

      He could do that with a clear conscience because like many Progressives, Obama believes in lying to people for their own good.

  24. gmanfortruth says:
  25. In case anyone needs more reading material, I’ve recently started reading this guy. Commenters are good too.


  26. You’re welcome SUFA!!!

    I just logged on to Healthcare.gov, filled out an application and explored my insurance options….all so you don’t have to! Yes, it took me a few attempts to set up a profile and I had to back out a few times in entering information for the application. But now you can tell friends and family you actually know someone who was able to log on!

    And…to make matters worse (for you), I’m relatively happy with my options. Found an option for me and my family that will save me $150/month. Moreover, my “worst-case situation” (monthly premiums + deductible + co-pays up to the out-of-pocket max) is LESS than my worst-case situation currently. PLUS, I get to save on a monthly basis!

    All together now….YAY OBAMACARE! Hey, you in the back, I didn’t hear you…

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Maybe you should go with it, seems your current plan stinks, compared to what you can get.

      • I strongly recommend everyone take the time to at least look into their options.

        • Did you purchase the insurance? I read somewhere that NY was the only state where it would be cheaper under Obamacare.

          • Against my will I am currently in NJ….

            • gmanfortruth says:

              Fortunately for me, I’m in the VA system and don’t need to bye health insurance, at least when it comes to the ACA law. I thought about just checking, but don’t want to add to the problems that already exist. Will you take advantage of the savings?

              • Why wouldn’t I?

              • gmanfortruth says:

                then response would be Why didn’t you? I suppose 🙂

              • I have a few months before I would need to purchase, so no rush. Want to continue to explore all options. I printed out the plan info (along with that for a few other comparable plans) so I can really digest everything when I can find the time.

    • From the back row: YAY OBAMACARE!

      …elbows JAC…come’on, get up and cheer: YAY OBAMACARE! 🙂

      The Colonel is not going to be happy…he was pretty proud of the fact that he knew no one (and I mean NO ONE) who has happy with their results…bummer for him!! 😉

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Now for the purchasing part. Buck may have only made it 1/4 of the way. But his early results seem very good for him and his family. How did your attempt work out Todd?

        • Only 1/4 of the way? How do you figure? I did everything except click ‘purchase’.

          • gmanfortruth says:

            Ok, I could be wrong. Was all your info verified (income etc)? That seems to be where a lot of people are having issues, from what I have read.

            • Why would I enter my income info — as far as I’m aware that’s only necessary to get subsidies. Once I wind up purchasing I will report back if I had to enter such info in order to purchase and whether there were any problems.

              As I said, it did take me a few times to get all the identity info in and verified.

              • gmanfortruth says:

                Fair enough Buck. Keep us posted on your success or lack of success as you go through this process. 🙂

        • Gman,
          I haven’t attempted anything on the exchange yet.

      • Just A Citizen says:


        Why would I cheer for an Unethical Govt program.

        Why would I cheer for a Govt program that Can NOT achieve its stated purpose? To REDUCE THE COST OF HEALTH CARE.

        • Aaaaah, come’on JAC, time to come out of the CLOSET – you’re a Socialist – we all know it, so you might as well admit it!! 😉

          Seriously – where’s your SENSE OF HUMOR today??

  27. gmanfortruth says:

    Charlie’s favorite is alive and well!
    PALIN’S KICKIN’ RINO BUTT: Corrupt GOP Elites Colluding With Obama

    By Clash Daily / 22 October 2013 / 50 Comments

    Screen Shot 2013-10-22 at 9.32.04 AM

    Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin may have taken another step toward seeking the 2016 Republican Presidential nomination with a combative op-ed on Breitbart.

    Recalling that she had once beaten crooked Republican politicians in Alaska – who’d brazenly tagged themselves “the Corrupt Bastards Club” – Palin rhetorically asked: “Doesn’t it seem like [today] we have a Corrupt Bastards Club in D.C.? On steroids?”

    Disloyal Republicans are enabling President Barack Obama to march the country toward socialism while denouncing Sens. Ted Cruz, Mike Lee and tea party-aligned House members who have been trying to defund Obamacare, Palin charged.

    Establishment GOP politicians failed to use the power of the purse to halt Obamacare’s implementation. Instead, “they balked, waved the white flag, and joined the lapdog media in trashing the good guys who fought for us,” Palin wrote.

    She challenged the Republican establishment to unite behind conservative grassroots efforts to block Obamacare before it is too late.

    She warned that Obamacare is part of a phased plan toward socialized medicine and raised the prospect that the system’s much-lamented computer glitches could be part of a purposeful scheme to accelerate that process.

    Read more: newsmax.com

    Read more at http://clashdaily.com/2013/10/palins-kickin-rino-butt-corrupt-gop-elites-colluding-obama/#sMG4yV43hykQEm56.99

  28. MCCAIN EYES 2016 RUN

  29. gmanfortruth says:


    One day we will know the connection between this FORIEGN company and the Obama administration. I would bet a case of beer that this arrangement is payback for something political that benefitted Obama.

  30. gmanfortruth says:

    Todd, these are the Liberal’s that make all Liberal’s look bad. I may attack the group, it mostly comes from the acceptance of such antics. Very few, if any, Liberals, condemn this stuff! http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/10/22/photo-alan-grayson-goes-the-full-grayson-n1729741?utm_source=thdailypm&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=nl_pm

  31. Congrats Buck…you are the second person who claims they are going to save. Wish I could say the same.

  32. gmanfortruth says:

    How wonderful it must feel to all the Liberal parents out there who are reminded that the government knows what is best to feed their children 🙄 http://freedomoutpost.com/2013/10/brown-bag-ban-feds-tell-preschool-parents-lunch-home-without-doctors-note/

  33. Anita,
    Bringing forward:

    Hoooold up partner, you are (deliberately) confusing things. Perhaps you missed the fact that the Colonels post is basically BAIT..which Murf is probably hip to..so she is cheering on the Colonel’s tactic!.

    In his first post, the Colonel said:

    blah, blah, blah…single-payer…blah, blah, blah… (I’m paraphrasing this part!! 😉 )

    I will answer yes to all of the above…..no exceptions. You’re argument that I leave an opening is quite correct…..unless everybody is on it……then do away with it. If it is good enough for joe Shmuck….it is good enough for everyone.

    Murf replied (before I had a chance to reply, I might add!!! 😉 )

    the Colonel….now THAT’S what I call an answer!

    How about it, Todd?

    So the Colonel was expressing his ::cough:: full fledge support ::cough:: of Single-Payer, and Murf seemed to enthusiastically agree!

    In the part I brought forward, the Colonel said:

    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.

    I replied:

    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…

    Murf replied:

    You call that an answer?

    It’s nothing more than a deflection of the question.

    So I was pointing out to the Colonel that his posts about single-payer are nothing but bait (hey, we agree on that!). But it seems Murf didn’t like my answer, and quite rudely said “It’s nothing more than a deflection of the question” – which really HURT MY FEELINGS 😥 …I am still CRUSHED… 😥

    So I don’t know – Murf seemed to be supporting the Colonel’s single-payer position load of bull, but maybe I’m reading it wrong…maybe Murf would like to explain…?

    (hope I’m right, or look pretty stupid right now)

    I hope you’re right too – cause if I have to comment on the “or” part, it’s just gonna get me in trouble!!! 😉

    • Soooooo what! Are you the SUFA police. Murf can cheer for whoever she wants. Hang on, now I have to go back and make sure…….wasted 15 mins and actually forgot what I went back to check for 🙂 ,,,,,

      You’re making it a bigger deal than what it started. When you called her a patsy conservative you didn’t even know what her position was on healthcare. So I called you on it. She was sarcastic, yeah, but so are you..a lot…and sometimes you get called out, sometimes you don’t. I’m sitting here not knowing what I’m trying to defend right now BECAUSE>>>> you overthink everything>>>>>>and make things CONFUSED>>>>on purpose, I think… and so we end up arguing about nothing..like this!

      I’m just saying keep it simple… and don’t be such a meanie to the neighbors…knowwhatimsayin….

      • I have watched this back-and-forth between the two of you….

        Anita- you are my rock star! And you are exactly right that:

        “the Colonel’s post is basically BAIT..which Murf is probably hip to..so she is cheering on the Colonel’s tactic!”

        I couldn’t have put it better myself, Anita…you nailed it with that one.

        And this: “Murf can cheer for whoever she wants.” You betcha, sister!

        Putting on my cheerleader outfit now…..it says PATSY on the back 🙂

        But everyone really calls me-

        Smurf 😉

        • BOOM! High Five Smurf! 🙂

        • Murf,
          Can you clear this up for me?

          I said, in referring to the Colonel stance on Single-Payer:

          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…

          Your reply was:

          You call that an answer?
          It’s nothing more than a deflection of the question.

          I was pointing the Colonel’s position on single-payer was not true, because his conditions would never be met – basically “bait” as Anita put it.

          If you agree it was “bait”, then what is your issue with my answer? How was it a deflection of the question? 😉

      • License and registration please, ma’am? Did you realize you rolled thru that STOP sign back there…?

        Yes, she can cheer for whoever she wants. I was just pointing that out.

        I called her a patsy cheerleader, not a patsy conservative. 😉

        It wasn’t about her position on healthcare, it was about her cheerleading.

        Yes, we were both being sarcastic. So was I called out for it, and she wasn’t? 😉

        I’m not overthinking it – I’m having FUN with it.

        It was a long conversation. I didn’t try to make it confusing. You righties are confused enough! 😉

        I wasn’t being mean – I was being sarcastic – and FUNNY. You guys just need to relax and think HAPPY THOUGHTS a little more. I posted an article about that – remember? 😉

        If we were both sarcastic, why aren’t you calling out Murf for her part in this?? 😉 knowwhatimsayin…? 😉

        • Dude! The Drama Queen page was a few back………

          I called her a patsy cheerleader, not a patsy conservative….WHATEVER!

          It wasn’t about her position on healthcare, it was about her cheerleading…. WAAAAAAA !

          Yes, we were both being sarcastic. So was I called out for it, and she wasn’t? NOOOO.. YOU WERE CALLED OUT FOR BEING DIFFICULT!

          If we were both sarcastic, why aren’t you calling out Murf for her part in this?? BECAUSE SUFA WOMEN STICK TOGETHER!

          (i crack myself up sometimes….and I hope I made you smile too, TOAD! 😉 )

  34. Mathius™ says:

    I would just like to take this opportunity to inform you that LinkedIn has sent me an email suggesting that there is an opening which I match be the Director of Operations for Planned Parenthood (NY).

    What do you think? Should I take the job?

    • VH! It’s a beautiful day, isn’t it? You really didn’t see Matt’s post..it’s a figment of your imagination..I’ll see ya ’round some other posts… 🙂

      • Sorry Anita didn’t mean to ignore you-it is indeed a beautiful day 🙂 I don’t have to go all the way to NJ-that is where Matt lives isn’t it. 🙂

    • God, I hope you’re kidding.

      • Aw shit!!!! baaaaahahahaha..I can’t win around here…

      • Mathius™ says:

        Good morning. I trust I got your heart racing and you’re wide awake now?

        Not kidding. I really got that email, and I really would be a good candidate.

        Not going to apply though – there isn’t enough money in not-for-profit. 🙂

        In all honestly, however, I like being an anonymous nobody. If I took a job like that, there’s the off-chance I become a story in the news for whatever reason. I would never want to drag myself and my family through something like that – having someone dig through your entire life and publish your dirty laundry or nitpick every word you say. No thank you. Ergo, no public office ever, no high-profile politically charged positions, et cetera. Not now, not ever. I just won’t risk it.

        I’m Nobody! Who are you?
        Are you – Nobody – too?
        Then there’s a pair of us!
        Don’t tell! they’d advertise – you know!

        How dreary – to be – Somebody!
        How public – like a Frog –
        To tell one’s name – the livelong June –
        To an admiring Bog!

        • Well, not the reasons I would pick for not working there-but if they keep you away from the place-they will do!

    • gmanfortruth says:

      Mathius, take this as a compliment. You are not Left/Liberal enough to do that job.

      • Amen to that !

        Was I dreaming or did Matt really say he didn’t think people should have an abortion after 5 weeks a long time ago?

  35. If you’ve got any jerky treats for your dogs or cats -Throw them away and keep an eye on your pets.

    Hundreds of pets dead from tainted jerky made in China, FDA says

    The FDA is calling on pet owners and veterinarians to report if their pet got sick from eating jerky treats.





    The FDA still can’t figure out why certain kinds of jerky treats are killing hundreds of cats and dogs. (Michael Loccisano/AFP/Getty Images)

    The Food and Drug Administration is still struggling to pin down exactly how thousands of pets got sick after eating flavored jerky treats manufactured in China.

    Nearly 600 dogs and cats have died and more than 3,600 have been sickened after eating chicken, duck and sweet potato flavored jerky treats since 2007.

    The FDA said on Tuesday that they have not been able to track down a cause of the illnesses and are appealing to pet owners and veterinarians to report any more cases of sickness or death that could be linked to the treats.

    “This is one of the most elusive and mysterious outbreaks we’ve encountered,” said Bernadette Dunham, director of the FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine.

    “Our beloved four-legged companions deserve our best effort, and we are giving it.”

    More from GlobalPost: High school student beat out experts to discover a baby dinosaur

    FDA officials asked veterinarians in a letter to send in samples of any suspicious treats to be tested for contamination.

    “The agency urges pet owners to be cautious about providing jerky treats,” an FDA bulletin warned.

    “If you do provide them and your pet becomes sick, stop the treats immediately, consider seeing your veterinarian, and save any remaining treats and the packaging for possible testing.”

    The two of the largest sellers of jerky treats — Nestle Purina PetCare Co. and Milo’s Kitchen — recalled some of their products from store shelves nationwide in January in response to officials in New York finding traces of poultry antibiotics.

    The FDA said the antibiotics are likely not the cause of the deaths but that exposure over a long period of time may trigger some sickness.

    Kendal Harr, a veterinary clinical pathologist, told NBC News that the specific compound responsible for the illnesses continues to elude experts.

    “I think that what it tells us is that the intoxicant is something that we’re not used to dealing with as a toxin in North America,” she said.

    Pets who ate the tainted treats may experience decreased appetite, vomiting and diarrhea.

    Severe cases have involved kidney failure, gastrointestinal bleeding, and a rare kidney disorder, according to the FDA.


  36. Just A Citizen says:

    MORE BULL SHIT from this Administration, and the NSA in particular, and the Congress of the USA. Republican Progressive Neo-Cons……….that means you as well.


    Perhaps a new “liberty amendment” is required.

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I think that it’s safe now to change the age old term “bullshit”. The new and more accurate term is “Obamashit” 🙂

  37. Just A Citizen says:


    Under private insurance I would expect RATES to vary by age, number of kids, etc.

    But if the purpose was to REDUCE Insurance Costs and to do this they deliberately forces 20 million or more people into insurance who did not want it, then why have a sliding pricing scale?

    It is starting to look like those millenials are not being used to subsidize the program but are being used to subsidize the 10 million POOR people with pre existing conditions.

  38. gmanfortruth says:

    It seems that this isn’t the ONLY issue with computers in healthcare. http://townhall.com/columnists/michellemalkin/2013/10/23/dont-forget-obamacares-electronic-medical-records-wreck-n1730172/page/full

    Well, everyone may finally obtain health insurance, only to find that there are no doctors practicing anymore 🙄

    • Epic Systems is right down the road from me; a liberal boondoggle to say the least. Liberal Madison, who screamed daily about the corporate welfare of all those evil oil companies, just can’t find any problems with this propped up company.

  39. gmanfortruth says:

    While this is bad news for many, I’m thinking this may be how insurance companies will get rid of their most costly customers. http://www.wnd.com/2013/10/shock-hundreds-of-thousands-losing-health-plans/

  40. gmanfortruth says:

    I have a question for everyone. Speaking hypothetically, what will happen when the US Dollar is no longer the worlds reserve currency?

    • Offhand, my opinion, Inflation will take off like never before. Eventually it will affect the entire globe. I’m the guy who keeps sitting back and saying, “the emperor has no clothes”. If we lose the status, the game is pretty much up. It would be interesting to hear from Flag on this.

      Again, I caution against predictions of when this will happen. I don’t know what computer model could be constructed which would follow the dealings of not only Goldman Saks but of all their executives. Like Joe Kennedy Sr. before the shit hits the fan, they will bail or at least position themselves to pick up the pieces. If I were them, I would probably gradually make my holdings liquid, sacrifice a lot of what I held just to fool people and be able to pick up the good stuff at bargain basement prices when the collapse occurs.

      That is why:

      Clinton-Booker in ’16, Let THEM own it!

  41. Ok let’s use me as an example. I have 0 income and 0 health insurance. By choice. I have always paid cash for my medical care…including the prenatal care and births of my two kids. I take thyroid meds and pay cash for them and for my office calls.I have a finnicky back and occasionally need muscle relaxers for that, which I pay cash for. I do have life insurance. Yes I realize I am taking risks, but it’s my choice to do so.

    I have never defaulted on a medical bill.

    Just left getinsured.com. Guess what? I get medicaid! Now instead of ME paying my own way..YOU get to pay my way. How do you like them apples? And if I don’t sign up I get fined. But if I do sign up YOU GET TO PAY FOR ME. And how many more are out there in the same boat as me? I thought this was supposed to save money in the long run.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      My Michigan buddy, you know as well as I that the ACA is NOT designed to benefit those who believe in PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. 😉

    • gmanfortruth says:

      How do you have zero income?

      • I. Do.Not. Work. (for a paycheck). 🙂 I saved my ass off when I had the business and have lived frugally since then. It pays to plan. I will still need to put in another 15 years somewhere but I haven’t had a paycheck since Jan 07.And I’m still not hurting for cash. I’m devoting these few years to my family, by choice.

  42. Just A Citizen says:

    Time to see how many here watch closely over their financial and tax situation.

    HOW is the IRS going to impose the TAX (penalty) for not buying insurance when the SCOTUS warned about moving into the realm of a penalty??

    How will they collect??

    Now,………….what can you do to prevent them from collecting??

    What will your cost be for avoiding the “tax” Penalty??

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I believe they will take it from returns. Correct me if I’m wrong, but the law takes away any teeth when it comes to penalties. I believe originally, there would be no punishment for failing to pay the “FINE”. The IRS can only collect taxes, the law wasn’t written for it to be a tax, but a fine. ????

    • The suggestion is to adjust your exemptions to where you would not get a refund, then there is no other recourse for them to snatch a penalty from you.

  43. gmanfortruth says:
  44. Todd, I feel you owe me an explanation…..why do you feel my stance on single payer is a load of bull?

    • Mathius™ says:

      Well, well.

      Look who feels like people owe them things..

      How typically liberal of you.

    • Because “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.”

      You even agreed with this: “You’re argument that I leave an opening is quite correct”.

      You know your conditions will never be met. You’re just playing a game by demanding single-payer so you can bash ObamaCare.

      Anita and Murf agree that your position is just “bait”.

      Will you demand an explanation from them too? 😉

      • Certainly because you drew a conclusion that is crap….and if they drew the same conclusion….it is crap.

        Everyone one of you “lefties” all stand up and scream fairness,,,,it is unfair to leave anybody out, it is discrimination….the poor are left out.

        I take up your sword and agree that it is unfair and it is discrimination and then you REFUSE to answer that my assertions that the elite are still prospering greater than ever. You turn a blind eye to the fact that the very people that are screaming discrimination and unfairness and the poor uninsured……do not take their own advice. They invent something so atrocious and create income redistribution, then EXEMPT them selves and their buddies. Where is the fairness in this? You cannot answer it or you refuse to answer. And I mean an answer and not lip service. You want me to accept that nothing works perfectly for everybody, therefore, I leave an out and somehow that OUT is a load of bull.

        None of you saw the trap that was laid,,,,,except JAC and even then he thought that I had “turned” . You did the normal progressive, and I might add, the proper military strategy of trying to turn an ambush into an attack. It does not wash, Todd.

        I am against Obamcare lock, stock, and barrel. I will never except it. I am 65 and I have a combination of Medicare (because insurance companies drop you when you turn 65), USAA supplemetal Health to cover the 20% and prescriptions that Part A and B do not cover, and VA healthcare for wounds received in war. I opted out of Tricare. So Obamacare does not even touch me. BUT……………I say, and still say, because so many of you on here drumbeat to the term universal healthcare and/or single payer system and then you try to deflect it for various reasons.

        So, I take up the mantle…your argument…and I say…….I will support a single payer system if, and only if, there are no exceptions. EVERYONE including the POTUS is on it and everyone regardless of income and ability to pay has the same system. I even take up the mantle of a group of doctors from the American Medical Association that says private insurance, in a single payer system is a moot point.

        Now, other than a lame argument of “nothing is perfect” and there are always exceptions, I will ask you the question…….WHY does there have to be exceptions. When it comes to medical care, you, me, Buck, the POTUS should be NO DIFFERENT than the man on the street living in a box. NONE. He has the same right to medical care as you do.

        To say that it should be different for folks in the government or the elite status…is spouting nothing by socialist redistribution crap…..and that is where the real Bull is.

        And I might add this rabbit trail….on CNN this morning, they were interviewing a doctor who says that it is his experience that 3 of 5 are opting out of the ACA system and will not accept it…..if it is so good….why is this happening? But another argument I suppose.

        • For the record.. My thoughts on your bait were very much along this trail..at the risk of cheerleading, you did a fine job laying it out there.

        • To claim a right to health care implies that medical professionals are national slaves. No one has such a right.

          What the USA DOES have is the resources to facilitate at least some acceptable level of healthcare for everyone. It is a question of management of said resources.

          The mandated healthcare bill isn’t really about providing health care, but rather securing business/customers for the insurance industry via force.

          If it was about providing healthcare, there would be a trimming of the budget and reallocation of resources to build something voluntary, similar to the VA system. There would be ‘free’ hospitals and clinics for anyone that needed it.

        • Certainly because you drew a conclusion that is crap….and if they drew the same conclusion….it is crap.

          You keep calling my conclusion crap, but you also keep acknowledging that you don’t support Single-Payer. Do you even read what you write?

          The only way you would support single-payer is in some alternate-universe where everything is exactly the same.

          That’s not going to happen in the real world – at least not the one I live in…

          Everyone one of you “lefties” all stand up and scream fairness,,,,it is unfair to leave anybody out, it is discrimination….the poor are left out.

          No we don’t. That’s a fallacy you keep telling yourself.

          The real issue is Everyone one of you “righties” all stand up and scream freedom,,,,it is unfair to tax me, it is discrimination….the rich are over taxed. 😥

          I take up your sword…

          If you’re “taking up my sword”, then you don’t support single-payer?

          If you supported single-payer, it would be your sword too…

          you REFUSE to answer that my assertions that the elite are still prospering greater than ever.

          Not true. I responded to your previous rant about the wealthy.

          You turn a blind eye to the fact that the very people that are screaming discrimination and unfairness and the poor uninsured……do not take their own advice.

          I have no idea what you’re talking about. Care to explain?

          They invent something so atrocious and create income redistribution, then EXEMPT them selves and their buddies.

          If you’re talking about Congress, you’re wrong again. Members of Congress and their staff get their health insurance thru their employer – the federal government. ACA and the exchanges are for people without health insurance. But Vitter added an amendment that Congress and their staff use the exchanges, which would mean they would lose the government contribution to their health insurance. I believe an admin rule was issued to correct this.

          This is not an exception or exemption – it is treating congress like everyone else who gets health insurance thru their employer… Like me…

          Where is the fairness in this? You cannot answer it or you refuse to answer. And I mean an answer and not lip service.

          Nothing is fair in this world. If I bring up “fairness” when discussing wages, you’ll have a hissy-fit screaming about that word. But now you think you have a “tool” to use against the Dems…but you’re the only “tool” involved in this… 😉

          You want me to accept that nothing works perfectly for everybody, therefore, I leave an out and somehow that OUT is a load of bull.

          Right – you left yourself an “out” – which I pointed out at the start of this, and you keep denying…

          The “out” is not the “load of bull”. Your support of single-payer is the “load of bull”…

          None of you saw the trap that was laid…

          Another “load of bull”. I saw you’re poorly camouflaged trap the first time you tried to “spring it”.

          You did the normal progressive, and I might add, the proper military strategy of trying to turn an ambush into an attack. It does not wash, Todd.

          Yeah, I ambushed your ambush, and you don’t like that? 😥 If you want a serious discussion…you have to be serious…

          So Obamacare does not even touch me.

          No $#!* Sherlock. I’ve been telling you that all along but you keep denying it…

          BUT……………I say, and still say, because so many of you on here drumbeat to the term universal healthcare and/or single payer system and then you try to deflect it for various reasons.

          No, that drumbeat is only in your head. You’re the one who keeps bringing up universal care/single-payer. And you’re the one deflecting yourself. Don’t try to blame us for that.

          So, I take up the mantle…your argument…and I say…….

          No, you take up the argument that the crazy-right-wing tells you is the “lefts” argument…

          If it’s “my argument”, then you don’t support single-payer?

          If you supported single-payer, it would be your argument too…

          WHY does there have to be exceptions. When it comes to medical care, you, me, Buck, the POTUS should be NO DIFFERENT than the man on the street living in a box. NONE. He has the same right to medical care as you do.

          Ok. Sounds great. I live on the far side of the middle of #^@%ing no-where. If we’re all going to have “the same right to medical care”, I demand a level 5 trauma hospital be built within 3 miles of my house, so I’ll have the same access to medical care as people in the big cities…

          Sound like a stupid example? But it fits your definition of “no exceptions” and “same rights to medical care”…but it still sounds stupid (and I mean your entire argument here).

          To say that it should be different for folks in the government or the elite status…is spouting nothing by socialist redistribution crap…..and that is where the real Bull is.

          NO ONE HAS EVER SAID THAT IT SHOULD BE DIFFERENT. It just works out that way in the real world. Apparently, you don’t spend much time there… 😉

          And I might add this rabbit trail….on CNN this morning, they were interviewing a doctor who says that it is his experience that 3 of 5 are opting out of the ACA system and will not accept it…..if it is so good….why is this happening? But another argument I suppose.

          It’s not another argument – it’s another load of crap. If I buy health insurance thru the exchange, I buy it from a private health insurance company – like United Health Care. The doctor only knows that United Health Care is my health insurance provider. The doctor does not know if I bought the policy thru the exchange or just called up UHC and bought it directly from them.

          Now, a question for you: How can so many people be so stupid about this stuff?

  45. gmanfortruth says:

    I brought up Mr. Grayson yesterday. I will be honest and say I can’t stand people like him , he makes me sick. Here’s another article about his attack on the Tea Party .

    Democratic Rep. Alan Grayson of Florida must be a real history buff.

    It’s well-known, at least to people who know their history, that the Democratic Party after the Civil War formed the Ku Klux Klan to keep black Americans down after the Republican President Lincoln and the Congress abolished slavery.

    When blacks were freed from their Democrat masters, the former slave holders just couldn’t stand it. Having already had their behinds kicked all up and down the Mason-Dixon line by the Union, and mostly afraid to openly go against federal authority again, the Democrats took to wearing robes and hoods to hide their identities and began terrorizing blacks who were deemed “uppity” during nighttime raids.

    Their trademark symbol became the burning cross, a dreaded sign that appeared in front of many homes and businesses as a warning that despite what the law said, the forces of tyranny and bigotry were hard at work making sure that ordinary people knew where the real power lay.

    KuKluxKlanNow Grayson is going back to his party’s roots and reviving the tradition of using a burning cross to put down people who oppose tyranny and lawbreakers.

    In an email sent to his supporters, Grayson, who has a reputation of hate mongering and slandering conservatives, included a color picture of a burning cross used as the “T” in the words “Tea Party.” The picture included the caption “now you know where the T comes from.”

    Under criticism for using a picture of a burning cross, Grayson doubled down with another missive in which he cited numerous alleged examples of Tea Party racism, none of them with any corroborating proof. Then he also included a picture of President Obama dressed as some sort of shaman with bananas Photoshopped into his hair and claimed it came from the Tea Party.

    Demonstrating his own ignorance or perversely evil personality (take your pick), Grayson rails about alleged Tea Party racists and homophobes, yet he’s the one engaged in emailing pictures of burning crosses and Photoshopped pictures of Obama to his constituents.

    It’s the same white Southern Democrat tactics that have been used for 150 years. The only difference is that now the Democrats feel they have black Americans in their pocket (just where they’ve always wanted them), so they’re going to use intimidation, slurs and lies to go after their current enemies, the Tea Party.

    Look at the Tea Party principles: Lower taxes (empowering the poor and middle class); constitutional (i.e. lawful) government; and free markets (as in opportunity for all).

    Those three points are a dire threat to the Democratic Party, which remains the same oppressive, anti-American, anti-freedom, lying bunch of jackals and cutthroats it has always been.

    The fact that the Democrats have switched from their old tactics of lynchings and standing in front of schools to stop desegregation just means they have better PR these days.

    They still support eugenics against blacks, Latinos and the poor through their support for abortion, which disproportionately affects those groups.

    They still promote programs that keep generations of blacks and Latinos in poverty and discourage them from getting an education and improving their communities.

    They still try to keep women down through a “feminism” that breaks up families, teaches women to be sluts (and proud), and encourages welfare-dependent single motherhood while calling it “empowerment.”

    The pandering to the homosexual rights movement is just a cynical ploy for votes by congressmen and women who openly mock their oblivious homosexual supporters behind their backs when the microphones are off.

    So it’s really no surprise that an angry, hypocritical guy like Grayson would dip into his party’s historical bag of tricks and pull out a burning cross.

    In defending his slanders against the Tea Party, Grayson said, “If the hood fits, wear it.”

    Grayson should take his own advice. I’m sure he’s got a hood in his closet that fits over even his big, fat head.

    Read more: http://godfatherpolitics.com/12982/white-southern-democrat-burns-cross-tea-partys-lawn/#ixzz2iZUDIZPm
    Read more at http://godfatherpolitics.com/12982/white-southern-democrat-burns-cross-tea-partys-lawn/#2yRXhwcU0eX9HZqP.99

  46. Whaaat? When was it, just a few weeks ago that the R’s were arguing for a delay in the mandate in exchange for a CR/increase in debt ceiling and Obama and Reid said, “NO NEGOTIATING ON OCARE” and the government closed down.

    Now here they are, because of the fiasco in launching, they might delay the mandate. So who was responsible for the shutdown? SMH


  47. Spinmasters, apologists, obots extraordinare!

    It Could Have Been Worse!


  48. I have tried 5 times today, as a test, to log on to the Ocare site. I promise I am not making this up.

    1st time: After entering my info, it said the system could not process my request to create an account. Try again later, it said.

    2nd time. This time my account appeared to be created…at least it said it was, and sent an email to my inbox for me to confirm my email address. I logged into my email immediately…clicked the link….screen said in huge letters- YOU WAITED TOO LONG TO GO TO YOUR EMAIL. Really….60 seconds is too long?

    3rd time: Clicked the link to log on, following the prompts on the website after the 2nd fail. Even though the website said my account had been created, and I was “almost there”, it said my username and password were not in the system. Really….it accepted my username and password as valid, then said they were not in the system.

    4th time: Again followed the prompts on the website…same results as 3rd try.

    5th time: Started over, as it seemed the website had probably lost all my info. Was told the system could not process my request to create an account.


    Can’t exactly say yay to Obamacare….


    • I’m hearing a lot of what your experiencing versus what Buck experienced. Amazingly, our Govt shutdown was mostly over Obamacare. It started with defunding, then scaled down to “delaying” the individual mandate. If the Democrats would have delayed the IM, would we be talking about this?

  49. Gman,
    I replied to your question about “personal attacks.”

    Any response?


    • Todd, Good Morning 🙂 Typing before a full cup of coffee, but I’ll try. I think your definition and my definition of “personal attack” may be somewhat different. I didn’t see dmurf’s post as being an attack under my definition. I will have to think about how best to define it, then I will get back to you. However, a huge majority, like 99.99999% of personal attacks as I see them have stopped. Imagine that 🙂 I guess if you needed examples it would not be to hard to find.

      On a better note, we have snow on the ground! Going bow hunting this morningso I’ll have some time to answer your question better. I do think that there is a small misunderstanding that will be resolved today. PEACE

  50. http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/24/charles-krauthammer-squares-off-against-jon-stewart-on-the-merits-of-conservatism/

    JAC-I still don’t understand your tying the Republicans talking about the computer debacle with the republicans being to ready to follow the democrats lead. But I think this conversation illustrates your argument.

    Watch how the only thing Stewart gets out of it-is we’re right and you guys are wrong-it’s the republicans who need to read the book.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      It does but in a much more general way with respect to the identity of one side vs. the other.

      As you noted, Krauthammer claims that “conservatives” accept the great benefits of “liberalism” such as the New Deal, Soc Sec, Medicare and Medicaid.” Well that would certainly come as a surprise to the Conservatives I grew up knowing.

      So this comment does show that there is a “similarity” in the two groups which is the evidence of Progressive Dems and Progressive Republicans. They BOTH agree on the general concept but only debate the efficiencies and details of how to implement the concept.

      Now to my point which you are struggling with. It is simpler than this issue of general beliefs or Identity of principles. Although it certainly is part of it.

      My original point is that if you do in fact disagree on the basic concept, in this case Govt Healthcare of any kind, or if you in fact disagree with the entire approach to dealing with High Health Care Costs, like the ACA then DO NOT fall into the trap of criticizing the minutiae of issues within the ACA.

      Once you begin arguing over how to arrange the chairs, you lose track of the fact that you believe everyone should get off the damn ship.

      Now this does fit the larger point we first discussed and which is revealed in the Stewart piece. And one which I believe causing many “conservatives” to question the R leadership.

      If the R’s truly believe in the “supposed” Conservative principles, then why would they engage in debates over the details of the ACA and not against the entire concept??

      Debates over details will inevitably lead to discussion on how to Amend, Tweak, Improve the ACA with R’s going along to make it “work better”. POOF, they just accepted the ACA as a legitimate concept despite spouting principles to the contrary to the people.

      Now lets look BACK IN TIME. Remember when the Dems started harping about the Health Care Crisis? It was the 80’s which led them to attempt Hillary Care in the early 90’s. What was the Republican response then and now??


      POOF, the R’s ACCEPTED the basics Progressive agenda and concept at this point. Whether they realized it or not, whether it was deliberate or not, doesn’t matter. This made a debate over whether REFORM was even really needed moot in the eyes of the media and much of the public. So now the true Conservatives and the Libertarians are trying to undo what was created by the Progressive Dems and the “Accepting” Republicans.

      That is why the fight AGAINST the ACA will be so hard and almost impossible to win. It is why Bush’s proposal to fix Soc Sec met with horror and outrage from so many and this rage was carried by the media.

      • This Krauthammer/Stewart interaction was interesting. First, Krauthammer assumes that everyone liked and went along with the ideas of government social programs like SS, Mcare, Mcade – huh? And Stewart seems to want to just get a big liberal huzah for those programs and now we’re all happy. Kind of weird.

        But what I found really interesting is how Stewart first comes out with Conservatism is just too easy but then when Krauthammer gives a very basic definition/explanation, Stewart understands it and accepts it (but, of course, has to continue to slam Cruz and Ryan). This seems like a contradiction to me and part of problem today – call it lack of messaging by the conservatives, call it the indoctrination in the education system, call it laziness and inability to think logically by the left or all of the above. To me, liberalism is “easy” – just say yes to anything and everybody with no regard for the long term effect, how to pay for things, and the damage it can cause.

        Look no further than ocare. So many HAD NO IDEA of the effect of the mandates – that there is such a thing as cause and effect. Is it sheer laziness of thought? Outright stupidity? Too brainwashed/propagandized to even begin to process this?

        • Like this – one example that is happening all over the country. This wasn’t hard to anticipate, if you only had the ability to think it through. I’m also waiting for insurance company layoffs to be announced. They were promised “big numbers” and obviously that isn’t happening so those that are in the exchanges and geared up for this (which they paid big $$$$ to be part of through the Jarrett pay to play program), will now be downsizing due to the realities of the ocare failure.


  51. Question: I didn’t read Levin’s amendment (not with a gun to my head) … but does he cover at all the supreme court case I’m pretty sure he supported regarding citizen’s united because if he doesn’t deal with contributions, etc., all the amendments in the world aren’t going to change a thing anywhere so long as money can buy the government. Just curious.

    • I don’t believe he covers that aspect of politics, but I agree with 100%, if we can’t take the money out of politics, it will never change!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        You cannot take the money out of politics in a FREE SOCIETY.

        Thus things will never change?

        Oh I don’t think that is true, but I certainly agree it is going to be very DIFFICULT.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Sure you can! Remove the ability to make themselves wealthy while serving in the Federal govt, money would then not be needed. Get govt out of everyones business, pull their teeth out, give them National security (military), national highways and parks, Treaties with foreign nations and leave the rest to the states, then it can happen. The Feds are out of control. Of course accomplishing this is a rather interesting challenge.

  52. Mathius™ says:

    I’ll just leave this here:

    • Just A Citizen says:

      I see three general parts to his presentation. My response to each is:


      • Mathius™ says:

        Sums it up pretty well..

        • Just A Citizen says:



          I think a night spent over food and drink discussing his views with him would be absolutely FUN.

          Although probably exhausting. Seems the early drug years fried those connection switches that allow your brain to slow down and segregate ideas and comments.

  53. Today, I celebrate! After years of hard work and patience, I finally overcame the barrier holding me back for success, I got my first bow kill and have a nice young buck hanging in the barn! 🙂 WHOOHOO!

    • He’s a giver! He’s a fixer! Now onto that broken immigration system!


      You can’t make this stuff up – over the top laughable except that it’s serious crap. Lots of good stuff on Twitter – head on over to Twitchy for more mocking of this joke of a government.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      I watched a little of the testimony this morning. I quickly left when Congress ass hat Waxman started talking. My skin was crawling and my ears were burning.

      Anyway, the panelists which included this person were some of the various Sub parts to the whole project.

      Basically they all claimed THEIR PART worked and they TESTED their portions. Fingers were pointing to another company and HHS which had the role of putting the PARTS together.

      One thing that did come out was that this company NEVER expressed concerns about larger program or concerned itself with whether it should be delayed.

      One of the OTHER firms testifying did however. They sent several, number unknown, up the food chain. Among them was lack of testing. There was no “follow up” to their concerns and they ASSUMED they had been addressed.

      A note of interest in this. Remember Flags theory of it only takes two to form a massive conspiracy? Not saying this is one but it shows how so many can be involved in a FAILURE without knowing what was going on at the top. The pieces are compartmentalized and they go THIER piece and it looks innocent enough. They never get the bigger picture of how their piece might contribute to a broader failure or event. Not pushing this idea, but it dawned on me while listening and thought I would share it.

      This of course also applies to general failures of large organizations, the Govt being such an organization. And the fact the Govt is notorious for Centralizing and Compartmentalizing things.

      • Bits and bits of info are coming out on this adm, and their “style”. It is indeed, Chicago-style thug politics. Reading more stories about outright threats, blackmail and coercion tactics used by Jarrett and company. I suspect this ocare process was filled with these threats and warnings. Don’t know if we’ll ever hear the truth or ever recover from this era.

  54. You cannot take the money out of politics in a FREE SOCIETY.

    It isn’t a free society if only the wealthy can own the government, JAC … if the deck is rigged one way or the other, those on the short end aren’t living in a democracy, are they?

    • gmanfortruth says:

      I think we can agree that the Fed politicians do NOT represent the voters who put them in office. The game is certainly rigged, only the rich will win in the current situation.

    • Just A Citizen says:


      Actually they are living in a “Democracy”. Remember, “democracy” is Mob Rule.

      So a majority of those who VOTE get to decide.

  55. Mathius, Buck, Charlie and Todd, Do you approve of what this Leberal had to say?

    “2013 DisHonors ‘Damn Those Conservatives to Hell Award.’ And the winner is: Jonathan Alter. At the Media Research Center’s DisHonors Awards were held on Thursday, September 26, 2013 during the MRC’s annual gala. Alter was one of three nominees for the ‘Damn Those Conservatives to Hell Award.’ The audience voted Alter the winner.”

    The DisHonors award was given for Mr. Alter’s words spoken on MSNBC’s The Ed Show on August 9, 2012. “Repeal [of Obamacare] equals death. People will die in the United States if ObamaCare is repealed. That is not an exaggeration. That is not crying fire. It’s a simple fact….[The Obama campaign should say] ‘No, we’re not calling Mitt Romney a murderer. What we are saying is that if he’s elected President, a lot of people will die.’”

    Read more at http://eaglerising.com/2466/liberal-spin-repeal-obamacare-death/#gOOmp1LwA25HSe8Z.99

  56. Let’s assume this is true. o Americans have a big problem?
    During a pre-deployment briefing, Fort Hood soldiers were told that Christians, Tea Party supporters and anti-abortion activists were a radical terror threat, enemies of America, and that anyone found to be supporting these groups would be subject to discipline under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

    That’s the explosive claim from a soldier who attended the half-hour briefing which took place on October 17 and was devoted to how so-called “radical” groups were “tearing the country apart,” the soldier told Fox News, adding that the threat of Islamic terrorism was barely even mentioned.

    Despite the fact that another soldier confirmed that threats of punishment were made during the meeting, an official Fort Hood representative denied the allegations.


  57. I’ll check out what the “leberal” had to say in a while … in the meantime, another gem from the gift that keeps on giving: http://dailycurrant.com/2013/10/23/sarah-palin-claims-jesus-celebrated-easter/

    • OOPS! It should be Liberal. See how new keyboards are?

    • Poor Sarah, she shouldn’t talk, she should just look good and smile. However, considering what we have in the Oval office, she would be a huge upgrade! 🙂

      • What, G, you believe it too? Holy Shit! Maybe you want to go in with Charlie on that bridge deal.

        Hey! were dealing with that Alinsky stuff here.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          Relax SK, I’m just appeasing Charlie for awhile and letting him have fun. I still think she’d be an upgrade as President!

    • Goddamit Charlie! Will you stop taking this “Satire” trash as real or trying to pass it off as such. If you actually believe this stuff I have this really nice bridge between Manhattan and Brooklyn that you can get for a song and make a killing on by imposing tolls.

  58. The end of the petrodollar, just how will that affect us? Can anyone comment on the economic issues that would happen in the event that the Petrodollar is no more?

    I know a lot of folks don’t like Prisonplanet, but they do have some good news articles that the MSM won’t discuss.

    • You have been obsessed with this petro dollar stuff lately.

      You have been obsessed with this petro dollar stuff lately. What are they feeding you ate Prison Planet, I’ve grown tired of that site. Could you some up your fears for us.

      • sorry my reply looks like that, I can barely see the reply box. It’s like a half line big.

        • gmanfortruth says:

          I am having issues as well with this site. This seems to happen when we get lots of comments, I will start a new thread 🙂

  59. Just watched the video (actually listening to it now) … incredible. The dopey comedian is scoring point after point after point … 🙂

  60. “All of this may be true …” Point, set, match.

    If I’m not mistaken, many of you in here agree with much of what this comedian says …

    • Mathius™ says:

      They do… but they’re not going to respond to you because you just posted out here in the æther instead of after the video, so they won’t know what you’re talking about.

      • æther…what is that word?

        • Mathius™ says:

          According to ancient and medieval science æther (Greek αἰθήρ aithēr), also spelled ether, is the material that fills the region of the universe above the terrestrial sphere.

          In other words, he posted into the void – the middle of nowhere – thin air.

          But really, it was just an excuse to use the ae character (called an “ash”).. you just don’t get a lot of opportunities to drop one of those..

  61. Stephen, you should’ve left it at Easter: Stuff she “Actually” said (the horror):

    • Nice history piece. I’m not sure if your aware Charlie, but McCain/Palin lost that election many years ago. But thanks for the video, it’s much better to watch Palin than to lay eye’s on any Liberal in the Government 😆

    • Too bad they didn’t vet Obama like that.

      • gmanfortruth says:

        Do you wonder why Charlie thinks we give a crap about what Palin said 5 years ago? I really don’t, do you?

%d bloggers like this: