Previous 11 - 20 Next
In response to:

Liberals Feel Crush of Obamacare

rtownsend Wrote: Oct 21, 2013 2:00 PM
It is the best healthcare system in the world. Every time some two-bit dictator gets the bad diagnosis, where do they come for treatment? Fixing the problems involves things like tort reform, not creating yet another government monstrosity that will under perform and over charge. That said, it is funny to listen to libs scream about the cost. They were naive enough to actually think it would be at no cost or that the mean, greedy, rich Republicans would be paying the bill... Welcome to Comrade Obama's world - not quite what he promised, huh?
What this really is all about is, for the first time, Republicans aren't giving in. Traditionally, whenever Republicans would make noise about fighting with Dems, the Dems would throw up some minority (racism, dontchaknow) or some pitiful, sad case (to evoke sympathy) and the Republicans would fold. Well, not this time. The Dems have overplayed their hand (picking on WWII vets, really?) and the majority of the country is either apathetic about the "partial government shutdown" (it was a "government shutdown" in the MSM before it happened, remember?) or support the idea of less government. The longer this goes on, the better for the Republicans, as the utter irrelevancy of the federal government in the lives of most of America becomes clear.
Make a similar comment to him and it's racism, intimidation, and time for Holder's DoJ to get involved.
Never before has a young generation been told "No jobs for you", but this one has. Unfortunately, it's getting worse, rather than improving (despite what the MSM says). My generation (Baby Boomer) will be the last to do better than their parents. The reality is the decline in the standard of living will be pronounced in the next several years, even with Master's degrees in liberal arts fields. Those who can DO something (either with their hands or with an applied degree with useful applications) will do just fine. The rest? Continue to vote for whatever politician promises to take from those who make and give it to you. It's your only hope.
In response to:

Hillary: She's the Man

rtownsend Wrote: Aug 12, 2013 4:23 PM
"Plausible deniability"... except if that document resulted in a dramatic rescue, she'd trumpet the fact that she was responsible....
In response to:

Hillary: She's the Man

rtownsend Wrote: Aug 12, 2013 4:17 PM
Frankly, I don't care who the Dims run. If this country believes in what they have to offer (after 8 years of Obama), we deserve what happens to us. Intellectually, it's interesting to watch the US walk away from the system that built us.
Helluva gamble he's making with our national energy supply: Eliminate over 40% of it right now and hope the technology makes up the difference. Of course, he won't be affected personally - pols never are. Stupid.
In response to:

Same-sex Marriage is War on Religion

rtownsend Wrote: Jul 01, 2013 2:05 PM
In the 1960's, in our collective zeal to embrace freedom to divorce, psych-types assured divorcing spouses that their children would be just fine and would suffer no long-term negative effects from the divorce. 30+ years later, the truth is undeniable and we now know the devastation divorce inflicts on children. Today, the same psych-types tell us children reared in homosexual households will suffer no ill effects from that influence. In 30 years, what will the reality be? Despite any court decision or law passed by Godless politicians, homosexuality will never have societal acceptance as the moral equivalent of heterosexuality - that is their goal, not marriage, not equality "under the law".
In response to:

The Gay Takeover of America

rtownsend Wrote: May 10, 2013 4:56 PM
Couldn't disagree with you more. Homosexuals have, through the actions of most state legislatures, almost all the rights of spouses now. For many years, the leaders of that "community" insisted they didn't want marriage, just the same rights as "everyone else". First, it was "live and let live" - just leave us alone and we won't bother anyone. That changed in the mid-80's to "coming out", where they decided to let everyone know they were homosexuals. Again, not seeking approval, just recognition. Well, that wasn't enough, so it finally "evolved" to demanding approval through civil unions and, finally, marriage. BTW, this won't end the litigation over the issue. Once the SC decides it is a violation of Equal Protection to say men can't marry other men (and it is a 14th Amendment violation IF morality is removed from the argument), the lawsuits will explode where the homosexuals perceive discrimination. Yep, they will be added to the protected class designation since most of society will reject the characterization of homosexuals as "equal". And what does this say about our nation, when we force society to afford the status of married couples to same sex unions? Again, take the morality argument out of it - you have to since no argument exists that says it is immoral to refuse to sanction these couplings - and it still leaves us as a nation that is lowering the bar on what is considered deviant behavior.
Reginald: You're right, the government shouldn't. But as more and more of the public becomes apathetic, when the voting percentage approaches 40%, this is not lost on a government that is clearly intent on controlling the daily lives and almost all aspects of it for the population. They want your money and the second they believe they can take it with minimal chance of outrage, they will do it, all couched in language designed to make you believe it's "for the good of all" and that anyone who opposes it is "greedy and selfish." Mark my words.
Amen. The government can't save and those that did are targets for the endless greed rampant in our government. Having said that, they merely reflect the portion of the population that honestly believes those who saved are somehow unfairly "advantaged" and deserve to lose their money. Crazy I know, but it's out there, represented by the Democrat party.
Previous 11 - 20 Next