Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

BEWARE: No-Knock SWAT Attacks

RickCaird Wrote: Mar 24, 2014 5:42 PM
There has to be a severe penalty to both the judge who signed the warrant and every one on the SWAT team when these things happen. If there are no penalties, then there will be no change to the strategy.
In response to:

Revolt Against the Testing Tyrants

RickCaird Wrote: Mar 19, 2014 9:43 AM
I had this same conversation yesterday. The schools have done it to themselves. Once they started graduating functional illiterates, they created a demand for testing. Then, like any bureaucracy, the amount of testing followed a kind of Parkinson's law and expanded to fill the amount of time deemed available for testing. If the school districts manage to opt out of the testing, they will need to make sure they graduate literate students and end social promotions. They will also need to stop mixing the low performing students and the gifted in the same classes. The end result of thmixing is no one learns anything
Obama seems to forget that his Executive Orders, particularly the ones that ignore black letter law, are only binding on his administration. I wonder what would happen if he casually mentioned that this "exemption" would only hold for the next three years.
"Dream" meet "Reality".
Is that like the Democrats vastly overreached with ObamaCare?
No, you did not nail it. Waiting can mean an early death. It is not waiting. It is rationing. Go look at Canada and England. Those systems work fine as long as you don't need them. But, if you have to go into an NHS hospital, better bring along your own food, water, cleaning service, and nurse. The survival rates for treatable cancers are much better in the US than in Europe and Canada. There is so much wrong with your understanding, it is hard to even know where to start with you. But, it is obvious you really haven't studied the matter. To get you started, here is Sally Pipes testimony to Congress recently of the Canadian system. http://www.help.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Pipes.pdf Notice the part starting on page 6 where her mother was denied a colonoscopy until it was too late. That is what you get with rationing.
Why should anyone sign up? There is no penalty for not doing signing up as long as you don't have a tax refund. Besides, ObamaCare will soon be gone and we can get back to getting insurance that fits our needs, not Obama's.
"Contract with America" kind of thinking. Good.
In response to:

Harry Reid: Little Bad Man of Nevada

RickCaird Wrote: Mar 17, 2014 2:09 PM
Harry Reid is a weasel. He uses his Senate perch to say things that would be libel in any other venue. The Republicans should be taking Reid and his son and turning them into the face of the Democratic party. Reid is such an easy target it would be easy to force the Democrats into regretting they ever elected him majority leader. Of course, that means we would be blessed with little Chuckie Schumer.
I disagree with your claim the insurance companies deserve to be stiffed. The insurance companies were quite happy with the way things were before ObamaCare. It was only the Chicago thuggery and threats that got them involved with ObamaCare. When they were forced to take on all comers, not charge for pre existing, and were basically promised twenty year olds to balance their books, the handwriting was on the wall that any bad ObamaCare assumptions would lead to bankruptcy. If the Feds had not offered these risk corridors, few, if any, insurance companies would have gotten involved with ObamaCare. If we destroy the insurance companies via bankruptcy, then if we do manage to end ObamaCare, there will be no insurance companies left.
Actually, the are redistribution, but I have never noticed a Democratic jumping up and complaining about it. In fact, when Bush vetoed the farm bill and the Democrats controlled the House and Senate, the veto was overridden. So, the more logical question is why do Democrats favor the scam that is ethanol???
Previous 11 - 20 Next