1 - 10 Next
Still, no one asks the most relevant question, which is: How many of the alleged "8 million" are signed up for Medicaid?
Why are politicians exempt from criminal prosecution for lying when you and I aren't??? For example: "Title 18, Section 1001 of the U.S. Code allows the federal government to prosecute anyone who knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or makes a false statement or representation of material fact to a federal agent,..." And, 18 USC 1033 establishes a prison sentence and a hefty fine for anyone who lies to an insurance company or a government insurance regulator. Yet, our elected representatives lie to We The People as a matter of due course. So, is any member of the House and any member of the Senate willing to sponsor a bill calling for similar criminal prosecution for politicians who lie? I'd like to think so, but I know that the real answer to my question is ... WHEN PIGS FLY.
Unbelievable! Our impotent Congress votes to refer Lerner to Holder for prosecution. Uhhhh, aren't we still waiting for Holder to produce doc's relative to the Fast & Furious investigation? And, didn't the same Congress hold Holder in contempt for refusing to comply with Congressional discovery demands? I believe that this officially marks the end of our government of, by, and for The People. This is now officially a banana republic on par with the worst in history!!!
It must be difficult to look in the mirror when the majority sees you as a bald faced liar, almost incapable of uttering the truth. This deceiver has lied with regularity, consistency and without remorse day after day for years. What makes him think anyone will ever believe a word that comes out of his lying mouth???
In response to:

The Trees

anonymous3784 Wrote: Feb 24, 2014 3:35 PM
"....far from proving that Randianism is not materialistic, shows only that Randianism is inconsistent..." What a great, big, steaming pile of horse puckey. Clearly, you DO NOT understand Objectivism, or as you ridiculously refer to the philosophy as "Randianism". From the Objectivist perspective materialism is a non-issue. Consumerism is, in fact, the fuel for Capitalism. Yet, the 'objective' is the satisfaction gleaned from, the love of, the drive toward ... PRODUCTION as net result of an individual's drive to compete, create and construct.
In response to:

The Trees

anonymous3784 Wrote: Feb 24, 2014 10:33 AM
Great column, thank you Mr. Adams. As a parochial school student in High School in the 1970s - 1980s I lost much favor with the Sisters and lay teachers for my respect for and support of Ms. Rand. They, like most of society, were incapable, or more accurately unwilling, to see the value of Ms. Rand's dissection and criticism of collectivism and it's governmental application known as Socialism. Of course, the Catholic church fell lock, stock, and barrel in line with Socialistic creep once the leadership recognized the benefits of 'the state' taking on much of the financial burden for the poor that The Church historically carried. Still, the Nuns couldn't shake their disdain for Ms. Rand's rallying cry in support of 'selfishness' as they perceived it. Through the years I have often referenced the parallels between "The Trees" and Ms. Rand's philosophical bent, though never as concisely as Mr. Adam's has done here. Conservative campaign managers should take the message of this column to heart and seek the permission of Rush to use "The Trees" as a campaign message. The whimsical, esoteric 'unplugged' start of the tale of "The Trees" would no doubt capture the attention of America's youth -- something that Conservatives have struggled to achieve.
In response to:

The Trees

anonymous3784 Wrote: Feb 24, 2014 10:12 AM
Kirk, I wholeheartedly agree that Peart's lyrics were very much an attack on tyranny and Marxism. Though, I do want to offer a bit of correction to your post. - The album title is "Rush 2112" - Rush was inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, although it wasn't until 2012. Interesting that it took forty years and an almost surreal resurgence in popularity of a 1970s art rock band in South America for the dullards at Rock & Roll Hall of Fame to recognize their musical genius. Below is a quote from Neil, Geddy, and Alex in response to their induction: " app app itunes facebook facebook facebook facebook Home News Tour Band Discography Shop Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Tuesday, December 11th, 2012 “We are honored to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame. The 3 of us are especially appreciative of our loyal fans whose support and dedication has gone a long way to making this possible. P.S. And special thanks to our moms for voting 6000 times!” – Alex, Geddy, & Neil
In response to:

The Trees

anonymous3784 Wrote: Feb 24, 2014 10:02 AM
"It's hard to eradicate socialism without understanding it, and it's hard not to eradicate socialism once you do understand it." Truer words are rarely spoken, Matt.
In response to:

The Trees

anonymous3784 Wrote: Feb 24, 2014 10:02 AM
"It's hard to eradicate socialism without understanding it, and it's hard not to eradicate socialism once you do understand it." Truer words are rarely spoken, Matt.
Yes, Libby I do find a college degree in Social Work to be a total and complete waste of time and money. Better for those who want to save the world one child at a time to get a degree in Psychology. Then, when the naive do-gooders burn out in 24 - 36 months they'll have a viable occupational path to pursue. As for a passion for Theater ... there's always a minor with a marketable major. If I had to count the number of unemployed actors with B.A.s in theater that I personally know, it would break my heart. It's stupid to pay $40 - $100k+ for a BA in Theater when they can learn the craft in local theater. Oh, and Ms. Presumptuous -- I did take a Sociology class as an elective. I also took some Theater classes, but ONLY on an elective basis, after I completed all of the requirements for my BS. No if's, and's, or butt's --- it is short-sighted, wasteful, and completely moronic to pay for a major that will not return the investment in less than ten years. Now, here's where dopes like you come in to the equation .... you think anyone should be able to get any degree they want, regardless of cost to the student and the taxpayer. As such, I ask you to please explain to a young woman I recently met who is working on her Master's in Art Ed and is pulling her hair out because she's already $70k in debt and is now recognizing the reality that she won't be able to earn more than $24K - $32K for years. Pretty inexplicable, isn't it? In my opinion, her H.S. and undergrad advisers should be brought up on malfeasance charges!
1 - 10 Next