Previous 21 - 30 Next
Do we need to have a law/regulation to outlaw every single error possible? How many times has this Uzi type incident happen in the total record history of human existence? Is it really necessary to regulate it? I am so sick of politicians wanting to eliminate every possible error, as if they don't make any errors. Ugggggggggh.
Oh, the days of Jim Crow and slavery. You mean those institutional racist days that were championed by DEMOCRATS?! When the DEMOCRATS fought for segregation?! When the DEMOCRATS fought for slavery?! Since when did Republicans pine for those days? They were never part of them. Those days were led by DEMOCRATS. The Republican party was an abolitionist party from the beginning. The Democrats fought to preserve slavery and segregation. I am so infuriated by how Democrats try to rewrite history. I am an American of Chinese descent. Though I am a registered Republican, I really consider myself a conservative, not really a Republican. If I ran for Congress, Mitch McConnell and John Boehner would probably rally their troops to defeat me, by dirty means if necessary like they did against Chris McDaniel. I call BS that the Democrats are looking out for the well being of Asians or anyone else. The Democrats are just a bunch of demagogues pandering for support to increase their power and pad their wallets.
Asian did vote for Obama overwhelmingly in both elections. Why? I have my guesses but I am still mystified. It used to be that Asians leaned Republican. Dole even won the Asian vote in 1996. However, most Asians I know are immigrants within the last 25 years. (I am 4th generation, my ancestors came from China in 1860.) These relatively recent immigrants that I know generally supported Obama and I was dumbfounded when they informed me of that. I probed them to find out why. Basically, they say the news says he is great and all the bad things aren't his fault but inherited. In other words, low information voters whose source of news is the propaganda machine that is the mainstream media. The Asians I knew in college (and I knew many) were very recent immigrants and generally apolitical. They had no education about the US founding principles. They didn't have a clue about the principles of liberty, unalienable rights, and constraints on the government to protect those rights. To them, the US was a nice country that was wealthy, orderly, and civil. They never stopped to consider why that is the case. They were confident that something horrible like the Cultural Revolution would not happen here but didn't consider why that is the case.
What has he ever shown interest in, other than the "fundamental transformation of America" and his vacations? Other than these two things, I really don't believe he is interested in the job of president. But of course, these two things don't really have anything to do with the actual job of US president.
It think that will hurt Russia more than it will the US.
I say the Press not only lets them get away with it, the Press is complicit. Witness Candy Crowley at the presidential debate covering for Obama with respect to Benghazi. Witness George Stephanopoulos at the Rep pres debate bringing up the bizarre and off-the-wall subject (at the time) of outlawing contraceptives. HE is the one that brought it up first. We have never heard the end since. I don't believe that he came up with that himself. The Press conspires with the Dems today.
There was a time when there were some politicians of both major parties that would stand for principle and nation ahead of party. Even FDR's vice president stood up against FDR when he tried to increase the number of justices in the SCOTUS in order to ram through his unconstitutional actions. Unfortunately today, ZERO Democrats in Congress place principle and nation before party, and few Republicans do.
I think this action is smoke and mirrors. Notice that artillery was targeted. Sure, artillery does a lot of damage but what really is a strike on ISIS artillery going to do reverse them at all? Answer, nothing. A strike to ISIS artillery will only slow the down a bit. It won't demoralize them at all. It won't reverse their course of terror. When I first heard of the military strike on ISIS targets, I thought "I am surpised. Finally, something I can support Obama on." Then I find out the strike is only on artillery. This is all a PR stunt.
It never seemed to me that Obama ever really wanted to do the real job of the president, which is to execute laws faithfully and execute national defense and foreign relations. It always seemed to me that Obama never wanted to be bothered with these things. When we were in the midst of a budget crisis and the GAO reports that about $200 billion per year is wasted, Obama didn't lift a finger to find a penny of that waste. I believe Obama just wants to implement his "fundamental transformation of America" and to enjoy the perks of the office. He never seemed to be interested in being the chief EXECUTIVE.
If the first hearings are in September, how can they honestly declare there was no wrongdoing?
Even worse, it sounds like the program to "correct" the premium increases does it by simply rejecting the premium increases, not by addressing the CAUSE of the premium increases. It seems to assume that the premium increases are due to greedy b*stard insurance companies, rather than consider that the wealth redistribution features, or other aspects, of the ACA made it necessary to raise premiums. So what will happen is that the insurance companies will be forced to lose money or pull out of the business. They will do the latter. The central government will then come in offering a single payer system while pointer its finger at those greedy b*stard insurance companies. Us taxpayers (including future generations) will cough up the tax money to subsidize it to keep the premiums low so the central government can say, "See, centralized government is great. We lowered premiums compared to those b*stard insurance companies".
Previous 21 - 30 Next