And the GOP finds a way to hurt the middle class, once again....!

[The Other Side]

WTf Are you from the other side or from another planet? Obama care should not be on a thread discussing loss of freedoms or hurting the middle class ??

You are also not in charge of censuring my posts. Enough of my freedoms have already been compromised by the Left. IN fact as an American citizen OBama has decided that I can be assinated or held indefinitely by our Government. You are making a big deal out of a drug test ?? WTF

Why do you keep expanding the conversation to other issues other than civil rights? Here, you post another GOP talking point about assassinations. In fact, what you are talking about is GEORGE W BUSH's law passed and signed into law by the republican house and republican senate for GEORGE W BUSH and extended by President Obama for actions on the "GET THIS"......BATTLEFIELD.

Yes, the very word the Bush administration used for the whole world as they used rendition to capture innocent persons around the world to torture, kill, interrogate and ultimately release without charges ever being filed.

THe protection of america act was passed by BUSH with the intention of doing many things like killing american clerics or americans who go to other countries and train with terrorists. Obama merely extends the law under the advice of the defense department and you blame him?

Get a clue bro.

Peace

TOS

 

[The Other Side]

804,

Better check your Liberal Talking points again. The payments to Doctors --now referred to as "doc fix" Will be in the area of a twenty two percent reduction in Medicare payments to them. All of the Doctors in My Area that I have used have informed me when the reductions go through --they will simply not see medicare patients.

Seniors will be forced to search for any doctors that still accept Medicare --they will be very few for all the masses and baby boomers . Then what Happens ?? Of course not "death Panels" or "rationing" --you will just have to wait until A doctor can see --weeks or months --same as the Ontario health system that I unfortunately had to live under. You Know the Canadian Model that You and Klein Love.

After a long hard working career of slugging packages --at 65 --804 and UPS cuts you loose --you are now part of the Medicare mess that is shaping up well with Obamacare !!! You and all the occupiers will be looking for "goverment" doctors that do not exist !! You are now part of the same group that would never deliver packages --much too hard --all in the same wonderful plan.


Plus the Prescription coverage for many Seniors has been changed by Obamacare --more important to give Rich Georgetown University Law Coeds "free" birth control. The average salary for a Georgetown lawyer is 170,000 a year to start---Do you think she will pay us back for her free recreational sex ??

Pure talking points Island, but wheres the beef?

Peace

TOS

 

[The Other Side]

ITs hilarious how far off the subject the right wing wants to go to avoid admitting that a civil right is being taken away by the GOP. Its even funnier to see how many of you dont understand you are talking out of both sides of your mouths.

On one hand, the C9 want to talk about excess spending, saying things like "the democrats dont know how to stop spending money", yet give the GOP a free pass on drug testing spending which will cost taxpayers close to a billion dollars each year.

I dont get it, is this just a case of being clueless or so programmed, you cant figure this stuff out?

The cost of drug testing every unemployed person to catch a small percentage makes the program INEFFECTIVE! Its not COST EFFICIENT, yet you are defending it.

IT makes no sense.

Peace

TOS

 

[upsgrunt]

What makes you so sure it's a "small percentage"?
How do you know that the savings won't be more than the costs?

 

[wkmac]

ITs hilarious how far off the subject the right wing wants to go to avoid admitting that a civil right is being taken away by the GOP. Its even funnier to see how many of you dont understand you are talking out of both sides of your mouths.

On one hand, the C9 want to talk about excess spending, saying things like "the democrats dont know how to stop spending money", yet give the GOP a free pass on drug testing spending which will cost taxpayers close to a billion dollars each year.

I dont get it, is this just a case of being clueless or so programmed, you cant figure this stuff out?

The cost of drug testing every unemployed person to catch a small percentage makes the program INEFFECTIVE! Its not COST EFFICIENT, yet you are defending it.

IT makes no sense.

Peace

TOS

TOS,

Do you believe a political party who strips away what you call a civil right, others would suggest a civil liberty and yet others would call it an individual right based on the idea of natural rights would be enough that any thinking person would logically have to conclude that such political party is counterproductive to freedom and thus anyone who votes for such would just be downright foolish in doing so?

Based on what you said above, could I conclude you'd agree with that point?

And BTW: I agree that to complain about wasteful spending by gov't and yet advocate the spending of taxpayer dollars on a plan that would in time be seen as nothing more than pissing directly into a fan and then complaining about why you are wet and smell so bad. The evidence suggests the money spent would be greater than the money saved but then in time market forces (yes people it's still a market too) would arise and methods around the testing would emerge to beat the tests. Then when the results show nobody on welfare is using drugs, what rabbit will you pull out of the hat to end welfare as you know? How is really making gov't bigger going to lead to a limted gov't in the end? Or is making gov't limited a self delusional position so that those who control the top and talking the rhetoric can bleed the whole system like a vampire? And truth be told, the same vampires control the other side of the isle too!

 

[wkmac]

What makes you so sure it's a "small percentage"?
How do you know that the savings won't be more than the costs?

Florida is a good test bed example, that's why! The idea is a political stunt and nothing more.

 

[moreluck]

There was also talk of some kind of job or job training to be done in order to get unemployment.

Apparently the left thinks that would be a horrible idea. They would rather see someone sit on the couch for 99 weeks....or more, if they had their way.

 

[The Other Side]

What makes you so sure it's a "small percentage"?
How do you know that the savings won't be more than the costs?

Well, most companies are now drug testing before hiring, especially DOT employers. Heck, even at Walmart you have to get drug tested. I think that cuts out the drug users. Sure, there are plenty of pot smokers out there, but you wont catch a billion dollars worth of pot smokers.

Peace
TOS

 

[wkmac]

There was also talk of some kind of job or job training to be done in order to get unemployment.

Apparently the left thinks that would be a horrible idea. They would rather see someone sit on the couch for 99 weeks....or more, if they had their way.

It might also prove problematic if challenged in court because the employee as a result of his/her labor pays an insurance premium every pay period and this insurance is not optional, it's mandatory. This also means unemployment is not welfare (don't pay in, don't draw out) and I'll use myself as example. I've been in the workforce paying unemployment premiums (my employer gets the credit for paying but the money comes as a result of my labor so I really pay it) for over 40 years and I've never drawn the 1st dollar in claims. My guess in all those premiums paid and with a very modest rate of return on that money, if I drew 99 weeks, I've still not drawn what I've paid in. Now ask the question if such unemployment system were not gov't administered but were instead piggybacked onto some form of retirement system, the incentive in the case of unemployment might become different. I also feel the same way about job injury coverage and disability. Placing the money paid out now into the untaxed column of said employee's paycheck who purchases such coverages but like some form of cash value policy over time, no drawing on these funds leads to cash value buildup where at some point the policy itself pays it's own premium or you piggyback these insurance accounts onto a retirement fund and then the incentive for employees pays off real big at retirement time. That's just one idea of many, even some I've not thought of so where's the limited staters on stuff like this?

Listen, hear those cricketts!

Now go ahead and keep talkin' all the bullschitt!

 

[moreluck]

It might also prove problematic if challenged in court because the employee as a result of his/her labor pays an insurance premium every pay period and this insurance is not optional, it's mandatory. This also means unemployment is not welfare (don't pay in, don't draw out) and I'll use myself as example. I've been in the workforce paying unemployment premiums (my employer gets the credit for paying but the money comes as a result of my labor so I really pay it) for over 40 years and I've never drawn the 1st dollar in claims. My guess in all those premiums paid and with a very modest rate of return on that money, if I drew 99 weeks, I've still not drawn what I've paid in. Now ask the question if such unemployment system were not gov't administered but were instead piggybacked onto some form of retirement system, the incentive in the case of unemployment might become different. I also feel the same way about job injury coverage and disability. Placing the money paid out now into the untaxed column of said employee's paycheck who purchases such coverages but like some form of cash value policy over time, no drawing on these funds leads to cash value buildup where at some point the policy itself pays it's own premium or you piggyback these insurance accounts onto a retirement fund and then the incentive for employees pays off real big at retirement time. That's just one idea of many, even some I've not thought of so where's the limited staters on stuff like this?

Listen, hear those cricketts!

Now go ahead and keep talkin' all the bullschitt!

It could be "job training".
Like Newt said, you can get an associate's degree in 99 weeks'
All the left does is shoot down good solutions and revel in the government taking care of people.

 

[island1fox]

Yeah, now we have "Bush light" Obama ---extends the Bush tax cuts , extends the bush policies ---I thought he was YOUR leader ??

 

[wkmac]

Yeah, now we have "Bush light" Obama ---extends the Bush tax cuts , extends the bush policies ---I thought he was YOUR leader ??

Those would all be true and you are correct in pointing this out but then let's consider this from another perspective. If Obama is a hardcore Marxist, a socialist of the first order and a muslim to boot and yet his policies are mirror images of Bush and a republican, does this make Bush a Marxist, Socialist and Muslim too?

More to the point, to democrats who scream about republicans and republicans who scream about democrats but those you both elect all do the same thing so.....................

 

[av8torntn]

Those would all be true and you are correct in pointing this out but then let's consider this from another perspective. If Obama is a hardcore Marxist, a socialist of the first order and a muslim to boot and yet his policies are mirror images of Bush and a republican, does this make Bush a Marxist, Socialist and Muslim too?

More to the point, to democrats who scream about republicans and republicans who scream about democrats but those you both elect all do the same thing so.....................

Along the same line those that do not vote must also be Marxist, Socialist, and Muslim because they did not vote against?

 

[wkmac]

Along the same line those that do not vote must also be Marxist, Socialist, and Muslim because they did not vote against?

If those are the terms you want to apply, knock yourself out. I still won't vote so there you go!

And if you do apply those terms, send Brett a PM and let him know so he can add those 3 terms to libertarian, anarchist and liberal too. My resume only grows!

Oh tell Brett to also add in Atheist too but that might prove a conflict on muslim being Allah is a myth too. How you reconcile that is your problem!

 

[av8torntn]

If those are the terms you want to apply, knock yourself out. I still won't vote so there you go!

And if you do apply those terms, send Brett a PM and let him know so he can add those 3 terms to libertarian, anarchist and liberal too. My resume only grows!

Oh tell Brett to also add in Atheist too but that might prove a conflict on muslim being Allah is a myth too. How you reconcile that is your problem!

I was just asking about the terms you applied.

The rest of that is above my pay grade.

 

[wkmac]

I was just asking about the terms you applied.

The rest of that is above my pay grade.

Ok, but if the results are exactly the same and in one case you call it "A" why is it still not "A" in the the other? If you want to call Obama "A" then be consistent and call Bush "A" as well. If marxist, socialist and muslims don't vote, do you judge someone a marxist, socialist or muslim on the sole criteria that they don't vote? If so, then to your standard, me not voting would require you to be consistent and call me a marxist, socialist or muslim also. I'd at least admire the fact that you show a consistent principle in application although I might disagree on how you arrived at your conclusion. But I'm not losing sleep over it.

Just find it funny where on one hand Obama is this and Bush is that but then when the argument suits the situation, we hear "Obama has done nothing but use Bush policies." But since you defended Rush for using absurdity I guess you can defend me for doing the same!

 

[av8torntn]

Ok, but if the results are exactly the same and in one case you call it "A" why is it still not "A" in the the other? If you want to call Obama "A" then be consistent and call Bush "A" as well. If marxist, socialist and muslims don't vote, do you judge someone a marxist, socialist or muslim on the sole criteria that they don't vote? If so, then to your standard, me not voting would require you to be consistent and call me a marxist, socialist or muslim also. I'd at least admire the fact that you show a consistent principle in application although I might disagree on how you arrived at your conclusion. But I'm not losing sleep over it.

Just find it funny where on one hand Obama is this and Bush is that but then when the argument suits the situation, we hear "Obama has done nothing but use Bush policies." But since you defended Rush for using absurdity I guess you can defend me for doing the same!

I understand every state is different so I formed my reasoning of your standards on my state. We always have at least a c,d,e,friend, and g on the ballot. I don't ever judge anyone I was just asking your view based on your standards. I've always found it more interesting in how different people reach their conclusions versus the actual conclusion.I could care less if someone doesn't vote or does vote. I always vote mainly because there is always a tax increase of some type on the ballot and I have to vote no since I oppose(strongly) taxes. I can understand the reasoning that voting changes nothing but I didn't(and still don't) understand the reasoning that if you vote you're a Marxist and if you do not vote you are not. From my view if you do not vote against it(because there are choices in my state) you are implicitly supporting what the majority pick.

Sorry I don't recall defending Rush. Since you bring him up I do think those attacking him should apply their standards evenly and not treat him special solely because he supports repubs. Rush is on the radio before I even get to work so I've never listened to him. I do know the leftists seem to be fascinated with him and that is enough for me to call myself a fan. The main thing I remember about Rush was that he tried to buy an NFL team and CNN fabricated quotes to accuse him of racism. I think there is a pattern there somewhere. I did say that I do not need him to tell me that someone that wants me to pay for their sex is a prostitute(or something like that).

Oh and Obama is this and Bush is that.

 

[wkmac]

I understand every state is different so I formed my reasoning of your standards on my state. We always have at least a c,d,e,friend, and g on the ballot. I don't ever judge anyone I was just asking your view based on your standards. I've always found it more interesting in how different people reach their conclusions versus the actual conclusion.I could care less if someone doesn't vote or does vote. I always vote mainly because there is always a tax increase of some type on the ballot and I have to vote no since I oppose(strongly) taxes. I can understand the reasoning that voting changes nothing but I didn't(and still don't) understand the reasoning that if you vote you're a Marxist and if you do not vote you are not. From my view if you do not vote against it(because there are choices in my state) you are implicitly supporting what the majority pick.

Sorry I don't recall defending Rush. Since you bring him up I do think those attacking him should apply their standards evenly and not treat him special solely because he supports repubs. Rush is on the radio before I even get to work so I've never listened to him. I do know the leftists seem to be fascinated with him and that is enough for me to call myself a fan. The main thing I remember about Rush was that he tried to buy an NFL team and CNN fabricated quotes to accuse him of racism. I think there is a pattern there somewhere. I did say that I do not need him to tell me that someone that wants me to pay for their sex is a prostitute(or something like that).

Oh and Obama is this and Bush is that.

Well as I said, sometimes it's just fun to use absurdity so there you go!

 

[av8torntn]

Well as I said, sometimes it's just fun to use absurdity so there you go!

In the end it's all fun and games.