Falling through the cracks, and loving it.

I have no health insurance, and I am falling through the cracks. I have severe heart problems, battle depression, and fight chronic shoulder pain. When I say loving it, I mean I love the United States of America. I am very willing to continue to fall through the cracks, and pray for the failure of ObamaCare.

I predict that ObamaCare would be a massive expansion of the federal government, riddled with waste, abuse, fraud, and additional losses of individual freedom, for every citizen. It's not worth it. I am not worth it. To have the nation suffer all that, so I can fill out federal paperwork, is not worth it.

I have wonderful health care. God bless the taxpayers of Cook county, for the stent which saved my life. But please, don't expand the federal government in this sweeping manner. I'll struggle to do better. I'll try to get private insurance. But for now, continue to fall through the cracks. I'll go without medication, regular doctor visits, stress tests, etc. I'll live with pain. My country is worth it.

Obama's speech to schoolchildren

U.S. citizens would typically approve of the president making a speech to schoolchildren. But I think the reason folks are objecting to the Obama speech is that he has broken faith with the American people many times.
1. He broke faith when he questioned the seriousness of the Tea Party movement.
2. He broke faith when he suggested that the concerns of american people, over health care reform were due to misinformation, and lack of a clear briefing on his plan.
3. He broke faith when he asked U.S. citizens to inform on each other at flag@whitehouse.gov
4. He broke faith when he repeatedly, falsely claimed the AARP supported his healtcare reform.
After these and other transgressions, the U.S. citizens do not have confidence in their president. They are concerned that he will, in his speech to the children, break faith.

Progressive Healthcare Reform: The Goal and the Naiveté

I've been wading through progressive postings on line, wondering if there is any common goal in the current healthcare efforts. I think I have found it: The elimination of the (evil) private healthcare industry. I believe this is why progressives are angry about the possibility of both mandated insurance coverage, and no government insurance option. This, in their minds, goes the opposite direction of their desires. Private insurance companies have more insurance policies/money and are stronger, not weaker. I suspect, deep in their heart, they know the federal government will not do a fantastic job of providing healthcare insurance. They do believe, however, that as bad as federal healthcare insurance might be, it would be thousands of times better than "evil" private healthcare insurance. Progressives must liberate the United States from private healthcare insurance, that is the goal.
Their naiveté shows in at least two glaring ways. First, most U.S. citizens are happy with their current health insurance. So they start this fight at a disadvantage. They must convince folks that a radical change is needed to something with which they are satisfied. I don't see any of the propaganda taking this on. I don't even see them admitting folks are okay with their current insurance. I do see numerous stories of individual tragedies, boycotts and threats. But I don't think this strategy is winning many converts.
Second, we live in a capitalist society. The current healthcare reform effort is at odds with a capitalist society. This is especially clear in a "play or pay" reform. If an employer is forced to provide for health insurance, somebody will pay. It will be lost jobs, lower wages, higher costs for the goods or services they will provide. It will not be lower profits. This is a bitter pill for progressives, but it is unrealistic to think the CEO and board will stand before shareholders to tell them they are cutting their dividends to pay for health insurance. The reason the CEO has their job is to increase profits. The federal government cannot force private companies to cut their profits (yet). Therefore the current healthcare reform effort is a threat to small business. To ignore this is to dim the chances for radical healthcare reform.
It seems to me the only way progressives can reach their goal is to change the very nature of this country. And perhaps that is another progressive goal. The strong regulation of every single private (not private for long) business. Bring every employer in line with progressive fairness, as it is defined at that particular point in time. Maybe the current healthcare reform effort was a back door attempt to end capitalism as we know it. Given the freedom loving spirit of the citizens of this country, I don't think progressives have even the tiniest chance of long term success.

Obama’s first amendent rewrite

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the fair exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of fair speech, or of the fair press; or the right of the fair people peaceably to assemble, and to fairly petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

The definition of fair to be issued after confirmation of Obama Supreme Court appointees.

Obama donation fraud, change he can live with

I donated to the Obama campaign with a valid credit card number, and the name Nine Eleven. Why isn't homeland security knocking on my door?

Forget Homeland Security. If Obama can't run his own web site, he sure can't handle a financial crisis.

Ebay won't let you buy a $2 spatula unless your name matches the name on the credit card. Maybe Ebay should be hired to bail out the banks.

Oh, the McCain site would not accept the fradulent donation, so I know this type of editing can be done.

I

It takes a ? to raise a child - early drafts

It takes a gulag to raise a child
It takes a cultural revolution to raise a child
It takes a federal agency to raise a child
It takes me to raise your child
It takes a socialist to raise a child
It takes a dictator to raise a child
It takes a law to raise a child
It takes a politician to raise a child
It takes a government program to raise a child
It takes what I think to raise your child

It takes my congressional committee to raise a child

It takes something which increases my power base to raise a child

It takes less control from the parent/guardian to raise a child

hmmm.....

It takes an adult to raise a child?

Naw

Cindy Sheehan on the stump....

Cindy talks, no wait, looks for those hurt by the Bush regime. The throngs of the oppressed gathering at the Sacramento Capitol have been photoshopped out of this photo by the Rovian Main Stream Media. Trust her, there are millions!

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19665569/

Immigration Poll

an amendment sponsored by Sen. Tom Coburn which would have required the Department of Homeland Security to certify that essential measures were enacted before illegal aliens could be granted visas under the bill. The Oklahoma Republican's commonsense proposal would have required the Department of Homeland Security to certify that statutorily required border fencing was in place and that sanctuary cities (jurisdictions which in general refuse to cooperate with federal immigration authorities) are prohibited

Free polls from Pollhost.com

Will Conservatives support the Immigration Bill if the Coburn Amendment is approved. (which required fencing in place and prohibited Sanctuary Cites

Yes No

George Washington on Valley Forge

"After a string of lost battles, now to see men without clothes to cover their nakedness, without blankets to lie upon, without shoes ... without a house or hut to cover them until those could be built, and submitting without a murmur, is a proof of the need for withdrawal of all troops by August of 2008."
- George Washington at Valley Forge, April 21, 1778

Durbin: Bush flunky

Durbin shills for McHitlerChimpy. If you listen to him, Iraq is all roses and smiles!

We liberated them from Sadam, dug him out of a hole, forced Sadam to face justicey goodness, helped them draft a constitution, helped them vote in democratic elections, help them set up a new government.

Bollocks!
What about Abu Grahib? Doesn't he know George is the greatest terrorist of all time?

What a pathetic Bush tool!

Pelosi on Iraq Resolution

"a political stunt" and "a disservice to our country and to our men and women in uniform."

Oh wait, that was when she was not in leadership. That was on the resolution to imediately withdraw from Iraq November 2005.

Now that she is in power she pushing a similar resolution. I hear it is "symbolic". Whattsamatter? Is "tough, smart" too old school now? And didn't she vote against withdrawl in 2005? I'm so confused.

PayGo: Dem Acrostic

Don't be fooled by the Dems responsible sounding jargon. PayGo translates easily to Pig Out, or Piggo! This silliness is suppose to give cover to rasie taxes. "Oh I'm so sorry to raise your taxes, but if we are going to help those suffering from the horrible tragedy of hangnails, we have no choice!" Again, the Dems think the average Joe/Jane is incredibly stupid.

This power grubbing would go until every American is paying the 70% Michael Moore feels is only fair. That my friends is the real threat to freedom: A federal government with a bloated budget, and the desire to decide what the constitution means by the phrase, "pursit of happiness". Shudder.

There is another way. Boring and unglamourous. It is called spending less, or SpendLess. Is there waste in government? It would be hard to find someone who says no. But when was the last time a government agency responded to cuts this way?

"We will reduce waste in this agency so the budget cuts will not affect current services."

All I remember are things like:

"Without a school budget increase, we will be forced to eliminate the high school football program!"

Right along with mass hysteria, rioting in the streets, dogs and cats living together.

PayGo=PigOut. Let's hope Bush and the Split Senate keep Nancy Piglosi in check.

(Graphic via http://www.azcongresswatch.com)

Nancy Pelosi - Republican!

When it came out Bushitler was illegally listening in on every phone conversation on the planet, she was caught with her hand in the cookie jar. She knew all about it long before the leak. So she decided to cover her tracks by... introducing legislation for Chimps immediate impeachment? No, by writing a LETTER! Wow. Well at least it was a scathing call for impeachment, right? No, it was just a CYA saying she was "concerned". Scrub so has her in his pocket. Rethuglican control continues!!!!

The Diebold Dean "Victory"

When Al Gore finally conceded the 2000 election, he went silent and deadly. Seeing that punch cards were on their way out, he initiated a black box operation to steal touch screen elections. It took six years, but working with internet savvy Howard Dean, the criminals have stolen their first of many.

First there are the touch screens with no paper trail, in thirteen states. These are the easiest. Once the ballot is finalized, a simple IF statement is placed just before the ballot is recorded. Republican quietly becomes Dem. Doug Chapin, Director of Electionline.org tried to bring this to light, but his silence has been bought at a hefty price.

David Dill, founder of verifiedvoting.org found many machines with unsecured wireless connections. Deaniacs with laptops and PDAs went right to the databases, bypassing the computer code and changing only the totals themselves. Gore’s deep pockets “found” some incriminating “evidence” against Dill. His story will never get out.

Feeble attempts to close the wireless hole were easily overcome. When an election worker disables the wireless adapter, a simple program is started, after 5 minutes the connection is enabled, and almost no one is the wiser.

Technicians with partisan fury “fixed” the motors advancing the paper trails in fifteen states. The motors burned out, and the paper trail was never printed.

As more and more states move to touchscreens, more and more democratic victories will be “recorded”. This is the real fifty state strategy.

The mainstream media will do nothing, they would sell their grandmother for a democratic victory.

I may be silenced soon. Get the word out, or we are doomed.

Joe Lieberman, Hat Distributor

Liberals are being handed their hats in Connecticut. There is a long line Joe's "Burned you bad!" Hat Emporium, and shuttle service is included. The destination? Outside the sphere of political influence. There's no coming back soon either.

The vilification of Joe was no where near a friendly debate of ideas. As the liberals stare at the burning bridge called "Rape Gurnery Joe" they cannot bring themselves to admit their own failure.

I never understood it from the start. Lieberman had a safe seat. Only the most deluded knew this would be a close election. Instead of adopting a strategy, like winning, the liberals decided to purge the Democratic party of Joe, at any cost. I would have thought trying to win in Missouri and Connecticut would have been much more effective.

Today I feel so embarrassed for Paul Newman. I saw a Youtube ad with him pitching Lamont.

I guess the liberals care more about being "right" than winning elections. But if that is so, why spend all this time and effort in the election arena?

Take my constitution..........please!

Now that the wholesale dismantling of the Constitution has begun, let's celebrate! Passage of the Torture Law shows the Dems are powerless against W. Soon we will have a one party state, and we can begin hunting Democrats with shotguns. Bambi can live without fear as we purge the earth of these traitors. I've already got my spot picked out!

Love a Liberal, they need it

Big ole' smooches for The Wizard at Democratic Underground:


The Wizard (423 posts)
Sun Oct-01-06 11:04 AMResponse to Original message
21. A close look at
John Gibson reveals some form of genetic disorder. This is why the Pox (deliberate typo) audience relates to him. Oh great Zeus, answer my prayers and strike them with your lightning.

Don't forget Wiz, we conservatives love you, because you are an American first, and a Liberal second. God Bless, and get well soon.

Losing Democratic Tactic #9 - Insult voters

Kos has the actual numbers:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/27/104416/472

71 percent of Republicans are too stupid too realize that Bill Clinton hasn't been in office the last six years

Don't get me wrong, I think a majority of liberals are driven by emotion over logic. But I'm not going to be presumptuous to the point of saying X per cent of Dems or Liberals are stupid.

By the way, calling people stupid tends to make them antagonistic to your cause. But maybe you have an election landside in the making, and can afford to lose votes with frivolous insults. Maybe 0.00% of the 71% would ever vote Democratic. Good Luck!

Was Harry Truman a Terrorist?

Wasn't Harry responsible for about 100,00 civilian deaths? According to the simplistic, Cindy Sheehanesque definition, Truman was real monster. Or maybe we should use a real live growup definition? Just a question!

Exterminate!

Deploy the Rove-bots against this Kossack. Not only does he use his brain, he understands how the Democrats could gain seats in November. Kos was gloating about how he blew off a chance to get on nationwide TV and talk about Chavez. BradtheDad, reveals his folly.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/9/22/11130/1428

Learning from mistakes (0 / 0)
In his previous post, Markos decried the Democrats inability to learn from previous mistakes, such as basically hoping the national security issue will go away and that Americans really want to hear about the economy.
Yet in this post, he is making a similar mistake. As Charlie Rangel and Nancy Pelosi realize, condemning Hugo Chavez for debasing himself at the UN is a cost-free way to wave the flag. It does not "defend Bush" as some have charged, and even if it does, in this context that is not a bad thing. Staying silent in the face of Chavez's deranged, unhinged rant is tantamount to assent in this case. Believe me, the American people may not like GOP or its policies, but they will not abandon them if the alternative is a party who can be associated with Hugo Chavez.
It's about the symbolism. Markos could have gone on TV and denounced Chavez in no uncertain terms for behavior unbecoming of a head of state, thereby allying the left-leaning blogosphere with the mainstream of American opinion, which holds that whatever one thinks of Bush, certain rhetoric is out of bounds.
Despite the epic screw-ups of the Republicans, Democrats have not gotten enough traction on national security. One of the reasons, I would argue, is that they don't take opportunities like this to reassure Americans that they will vigorously defend America. Sure, it's purely symbolic. But the GOP has been riding the symbols of national security to power for generations now.
by BradtheDad on Fri Sep 22, 2006 at 09:28:04 AM PDT