Long Live Oregonians- Unless of Course You Want to Die- in Which Case We'll Kill You

Posted: Sep 22, 2013 7:00 AM

TeaParty Jackson wrote: ...oh, yeah, and the picture of the execution chamber? No hyperbole THERE, right? Phoo. This website is for DUMMIES. - What a Disaster: Obamacare Shows the Dangers of High Capacity Legislation

Dear Comrade Jackson,

You are correct: The website is, in part, for dummies. And that is what brought you here.

Look, we’ve been doing this since the Internet was (eye roll) invented by Al Gore.

We kind of have an idea what we are doing when it comes to luring you liberal trolls who are graduates from the Soros Academy of Remedial Writing and Logic.

Hence, the picture of the execution chamber.

It worked. Even liberals like you understood the implications.

It got you mad, and you reacted.

I live off of folks like you.

Because, your reaction gives me the second and third and forth chance to make the underlying point.

What’s lethal injection compared to Obamacare? You may not like the death penalty, but at least the people who get it have due process under the law.

The rest of us won’t be quite so lucky.

“ObamaCare’s cost-cutting board — memorably called a ‘death panel’ by Sarah Palin — is facing growing opposition from Democrats who say it will harm people on Medicare,” writes The Hill. “Former Democratic National Committee Chairman Howard Dean drew attention to the board designed to limit Medicare cost growth when he called for its repeal in an op-ed late last month.”

Townhall Finance Video- Jihadists Take Control of Christian Village Maaloula in Syria

The Hill says that Democrats who face tough reelection fights are also calling for an overhaul of the law to get rid of the ‘death panel’.

A wave of vulnerable Democrats over the past three months has signed on to bills repealing the board’s powers, including Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.) and Reps. Ron Barber (Ariz.), Ann Kirkpatrick (Ariz.), Kyrsten Sinema (Ariz.) and Elizabeth Esty (Conn.).

All five are considered vulnerable in next year’s election, highlighting the stakes and the political angst surrounding the healthcare measure.

“Though I was called a liar for calling it like it is, many of these accusers finally saw that ObamaCare did in fact create a panel of faceless bureaucrats who have the power to make life and death decisions about healthcare funding,” Palin wrote on Facebook, according to The Hill.

But she isn’t the only person who has made the correlation between state-run healthcare and morbidity.

In June of this year our own Dan Mitchell from Cato pointed out that the UK’s state-run national healthcare system is responsible for a massive amount of deaths.He quoted a Daily Mail report:

As many as 1,165 people starved to death in NHS hospitals over the past four years… According to figures released by the Office for National Statistics following a Freedom of Information request, for every patient who dies from malnutrition, four more have dehydration mentioned on their death certificate. …In 2011, 43 patients starved to death and 291 died in a state of severe malnutrition, while the number of patients discharged from hospital suffering from malnutrition doubled to 5,558. …NHS hospitals have also stood accused of fiddling figures to mask the numbers of patients dying needlessly.

There were only 32 legal executions by due process in the United States in all of 2011.

If anyone is guilty of hyperbole, it’s the supporters of Obamacare who have called it a job-creator and a deficit-fighter, while using tax money to make commercials like this in support of it:

Blech. Make sure you watch for the farmer with the carrot. He looks like he’s in a SNL cartoon of the Ambiguously Gay Duo.

A Hat Tip to Guy Benson for the commercial.

I’ll get even with you Guy.

Does anyone find a state-sponsored cartoon with the lyrics "Long Live Oregonians" ironic as assisted suicide in Oregon hit an all-time high in 2012?

Which is it? Long Live Oregonians? Or Right to Die Oregonians? Or We reserve the right right to kill you, Oregonians?

The scary thing is that this could get even get MORE Orwellian. Thanks Obamacare.

Jokamura wrote: But they still win elections don't they? - Liberals Do the Same Thing, Get the Same Result Year After Year, After Year, After...

Dear Comrade Jokamura,

They did about what the system allows actually.They overdrew the goodwill of Americans in 2009 and 2010. They got trounced in 2010. They fought to a standstill in 2012 with Obama picking up a close win.

If you think that means liberals will be in a permanent majority, then have at it. That’s the most certain way for liberals to lose elections.

Plus, wining against Romney isn’t exactly the same thing as taking on the New England Patriots. It’s more like playing against Jacksonville.

2012 was an election crying out for a leader, and I think in the end, the American people felt poorly about both of their choices.

Don’t expect to get so lucky next time around.

Dr Roy wrote: I don't think this issue is as cut and dried as it would first appear. The question is does a business owner have the right to prevent his customers and employees from carrying a concealed weapon onto his property? - Way to Stick to Your Guns Starbucks

Dear Comrade Doctor,

Of course you wouldn’t. You never have a strong opinion about anything. Unless it’s saying “everybody steals,” which I suppose is something you learned while serving faithfully in the Illinois Brotherhood of Teamsters, Garbage Dumpsters, Bricklayers and Apprentice Pot Hole Fillers local 317.

A business owner doesn’t have the right to abridge ANYONE’S rights.

Liberals must have a reading disorder.

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn’t read shall not be infringed… unless of course the owner of private property decides that he’d like to infringe on it. Or… shall not be infringed unless of course the exercise of said right makes certain liberals squeamish and uncomfortable because they don’t know the first things about guns anyway. It also doesn’t say shall not be infringed unless popular opinion amongst latte sippers somehow overrules local laws that the property owner was adhering to before.

tbmbuzz wrote: Starbucks is REQUESTING that guns not be brought into their stores, which they have every right to do. In fact, as a private entity they also have the right to ban guns outright from their property. The Second Amendment applies to the GOVERNMENT, not private individuals and institutions. What is so hard to understand about this fundamental concept? Both sides for some reason have decided to make Starbucks a whipping boy for their point of view. Neither side has the right to dictate to Starbucks what its gun policy should be. Nor does either side have the right to dictate to Starbucks what its First Amendment rights are. Funny how gun fanatics become fascists just like the Left when they perceive a threat to their pet issue, which isn't the case here with Starbucks. The Constitution really is dead in this country. If rabid 2nd Amendment advocates refuse to patronize Starbucks now, they are free to exercise that right. However, by the same token, Starbucks is free to exercise ITS Constitutional rights. - Way to Stick to Your Guns Starbucks

Dear Comrade Buzz,

I request that everyone send me the balance of their personal checking account, plus any overdraft amount they have available.

I have the right to request that, just as Starbucks has the right to request whatever they want.

Please send to:

PO Box 712

Parker, CO 80134

You can make check payable to: Parent Led Reform.

Oh, and I want a pony too.

True Liberal wrote: Interesting dichotomy. On the one hand, we have our individual 2nd Amendment rights to have firearms. On the other, we have our freedom of association. I am actually OK with Starbuck's or any other establishment refusing to serve those that open-carry or for any other reason. It should be part of their right to freedom of association. Those that are not welcome at that establishment can go elsewhere. We can let the free market work. - Way to Stick to Your Guns Starbucks

Dear True Liberal,

Isn’t that the same argument that segregationists made?

Goldilocks wrote: The Great Recession began while Bush was President. So how did Democrats trigger the Great Recession? -How to Break Up With Obama

Dear Goldilocks,

Ah, yes: Blame Bush!

The old refrain. You guys should set that to music to the world’s smallest violin.

Democrats didn’t trigger the Great Recession. Rather they put the GREAT in the recession.

We’ve had recessions before. There is a list of do’s and don’ts on recession. The Democrats since 2009 have been using the “don’t” list.

Hence, this has been the worst economic recovery ever. That’s 100 percent the responsibility of: 1) Our Idiot in Chief; and 2) his 111th Congress, which passed some of the stupidest legislation on record, much of which still hasn’t been implemented…because it’s soooo STUPID.

See the article above on Obamacare.

airstart wrote Dear Mr. Ransom, I take issue with your ad-hoc comments about boomers. As a boomer myself growing up in the Midwest rural (flyover country) 50's and 60's, I remember working nights through Jr. Hi and High school for 60 cents an hour to buy school clothes, compulsory military service (Viet Nam era) nuke drills in grade school cold war era. Your ignorance of boomers except the ones in DC is apparent. Get out of your penthouse office, read some American History that hasn't suffered the revisionist's pen, and re-think your broad brush approach to who boomers really are. - The Unhappy Presidencies of Carter and Obama: Merging the Idol and the Ideal

Dear Comrade Airstart,

I knew you would take issue with it.

You think that working nights to buy clothes was tough?

Try living during the Great Depression like General Felix Sparks did.

Sparks left home shortly after graduation with $18 his father borrowed from a family friend. He rode the boxcars all around the West, sleeping outside with other hobos until he finally ran out of money. Down and out in San Francisco, he joined the Army because he was literally starving.

He was one of the lucky ones.

He left the army after a few years and took some money he had saved working on the side as a photographer and went to college. He was called back to service as America entered World War II.

You can read about him in the book The Liberator: One World War II Soldier's 500-Day Odyssey from the Beaches of Sicily to the Gates of Dachau.

This from the publisher:

From July 10, 1943, the date of the Allied landing in Sicily, to May 8, 1945, when victory in Europe was declared – the entire time it took to liberate Europe – no regiment saw more action, and no single platoon, company, or battalion endured worse, than the ones commanded by Felix Sparks, who had entered the war as a greenhorn second lieutenant of the 157th “Eager for Duty” Infantry Regiment of the 45th “Thunderbird” Division.Sparks and his fellow Thunderbirds fought longest and hardest to defeat Hitler, often against his most fanatical troops, when the odds on the battlefield were even and the fortunes of the Allies hung in the balance – and when the difference between defeat and victory was a matter of character, not tactics or armor.

Boomers had compulsory military service, too but it was easily avoided. It certainly wasn’t looked to as salvation as it was for Sparks.

I was born in 1964, so technically I’m a boomer too. I got a job when I was 14 so that I could buy my own food. I was raised by my father who travelled most of the time. But I’m not kidding myself that I was Felix Sparks. This is a guy who didn’t even have a home to go to for much of his life from 18 years old to 30.

You’re comparing what you went through to the generation that brought us guys like Sparks?


As for my penthouse in D.C., I don’t have one. I grew up in Chicago and live in Colorado, double flyover country. Even people from the Midwest fly over us.

I don’t speak for D.C. and D.C. doesn’t speak for me.

I bet I know more about the real history of the country than you do.

In any event, you’ve t least proven you know nothing about me.

Jay Hackett wrote: So I'm at Barnes and Noble checking to see if the new issues of Collector Vehicle books that I don't subscribe to were in....on the same side of the rack but at the end of the rack I heard some sounds....I looked over....a 50ish guy was looking a magazine all over while he grunted and moaned...figured it was a Playboy or some other mag of that genre....when I walked past him to get to the checkout I was curious so I looked over his shoulder....it was a guns/weapons mag......solidified my belief that abnormal obsession with guns is for the phallus-challenged and the phallus-deprived...just sayin'. - 0-4 Obama Underdog Against Syria

Dear Comrade Jay,

So you seem to be saying that lesbians have an unnatural obsession with guns?

You also seem to be implying that our Founding Fathers were, um, phallus-challenged.

I find it odd that you’d be attracted to anyone who was grunting or moaning in a bookstore. I’m surprised too that you’d be looking over his shoulder to see what he was reading as you passed by.

I thought that kind of stuff was supposed to be done in the restroom stall with a secret foot tap.

It sounds to me like you’re the one who is challenged. You seem to not understand what the phallus or the gun is properly used for.

That’s it for this week.