Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Home RSS
 
 
 

Obama typical D.C. insider

May 28, 2013

A politician can pull off only so many well-timed maneuvers before even his staunchest supporters must admit the efforts do not pass the smell test....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(63)

TiredOfTax

May-31-13 1:17 PM

Last week, the state of California claimed that its version of Obamacare’s health insurance exchange would actually reduce premiums. “These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard,” boasted Peter Lee, executive director of the California exchange. But the data that Lee released tells a different story: Obamacare, in fact, will increase individual-market premiums in California by as much as 146 percent.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

May-31-13 10:08 AM

How about we just refer to them as government run and schools not run by the government. I my current area we have schools that are religion based but not in the traditional parochial sense.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ron1960

May-31-13 8:35 AM

TiredofTax, Your so smart you just proved my point. Unless congress passes it the Senate and the president can not sign it and therefore can not spend the money.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

May-31-13 7:57 AM

Actually guys, it's Secular or Parochial when it comes to schools. St. Marys Institute: Parochial. GHS: Secular.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

May-31-13 2:19 AM

drugsrus, I know what secular means; I just don't think you do.

You made a reference to public ('municipal') schools sharing textbooks with 'secular' ones. I've never heard of a 'secular' school in that sense, since they're basically any school not affiliated with a religion is 'secular'. SO how does that make any sense.

Again: you either didn't know that 'secular' mean't that (or at least thought secular meant religious) OR you failed the logic test since it would make no sense that public schools cannot share textbooks with other public schools.

Now that I've needed to spell it out for you...

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

May-30-13 10:37 PM

I also know that this administration has spent more than any before. Much of it was before the American people took away the house to limit the onslaught of taxation and spending that Obama and you progressives love. I say slow the spending, and reduce the size of government. It is the only chance future generations have.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

laker88

May-30-13 10:34 PM

wow, is that the best you got drugs?? Anyway, have a good night all, and yes, you too drugs.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

May-30-13 10:33 PM

Congress cannot pass anything without a president's signature. So what can they pass... only what the senate and the president will allow. So Ron1960 tell me again how smart you are, it isn't as apparent as you believe either and I am open to conversation no matter how wrong you continue to be.

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

May-30-13 10:20 PM

well swizzer, and laker - municipal - of or relating to the government of a city or town

secular -b : not overtly or specifically religious <secular music>

check a dictionary once in a while

Do you have diplomas??? did they give them to you or did you buy them???

1 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

laker88

May-30-13 9:35 PM

continued... train of thought!?! Nor have I ever taken one hand out, have worked 2 jobs all my life, made some investments and am now enjoying the fruits of my labor. Don't know about you, but I'm a happy camper, unlike certain right wingers here.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

laker88

May-30-13 9:31 PM

Well Rs...who knows how drugs came up with that bizarre/non-sensical

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

May-30-13 8:54 PM

drugsrus... 'municipal schools' ARE 'secular schools.'

Get off the bath salts.

Let me guess: you meant to say 'municipal schools' and 'religious' ones.

Just admit you either didn't know what 'secular' meant or that you don't know how to apply logic correctly.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

May-30-13 8:51 PM

notgood, you may want to rethink your statement about who lives off the government dollar. I've never been on any public assistance and employ several people on a full-time basis, none of whom are on any public assistance or at least not earning little enough from my business to be.

Get your fact straights before you go off on strange tangents.

You can't just call someone who disagrees with you one who 'lives off the government dollar.'

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

notgood

May-30-13 7:56 PM

Well I guess we can see who lives off the government dollar on this post! Laker and Rs your post are a JOKE!!!!! Time people like yourself start paying your fair share!!!!!

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

May-30-13 7:26 PM

swizzer, you really need to apply for a refund on all that money paid to colleges for your higher learning. I'll even testify for you.

Yes, the founders knew that religion and government is not a good mix. That is why the Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" You can practice any religion or none at all. The old argument that municipal schools could not allow secular schools to Borrow text books due to the maintenance of the separation of church and state was always really lame. As long as the public schools worked with all secular schools that wanted to participate and excluded no one, all is good.

Have you read the Bible or do you follow the Koran like your pal Barry??

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

May-30-13 4:22 PM

drugsrus, Jesus H. are you sure you're not tweaking on bath salts?

If the 'primary reason for marriage is proceeation' (which is actually false), then why are there so many heterosexual people who have lots and lots of children out of wedlock?

There is nothing saying you need to be married to have children.

Why can't you EVER make a logical comment?!?!?!?!?!

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

May-30-13 4:19 PM

drugsrus, this Country was founded on Judeo-Christian values and yet somehow the Founding Fathers knew the dangers of mixing religion and government. In fact they even banned it in the Constitution that you claim to know so well.

And since the Constitution and subsequent amendments were drafted, do you mean to tell me nothing has changed in this country? About 225 years later and not one principle has changed? No increase in membership in other religions?

So then, since you have no isolated everyone non-'Judeo-Christian', does that mean Muslims, Buddhists, or Hindus either can't come here or aren't held to the same rights?

What about people who convert to these religions from a 'Judeo-Christian' one? Do they relinquesh their rights?

By your logic, religion, specificall 'Judeo-Christian' ones are more like clubs than philosophies.

I really can't wait for your fun answers; but I wait with bated breath.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

drugsrus

May-30-13 4:01 PM

swizzer, stop beating that dead horse. Like it or not this country was founded on Judeo-Christian values. And the primary reason for marriage is procreation, a bit difficult when 2 boys or 2 girls "get married". Paying taxes has nothing to do with that.

Poor getting into trouble???? Not too many economically disadvantaged people need lawyers. Only the ones who commit crimes, and there are Constitutional provisions for that.

And why not speak English?? It is the language of the land. It's funny how this country is nearing 250 yrs. old (officially) and these things have only been a problem for the past 10 or so years.

Not everything needs to change -- GET OVER IT

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

May-30-13 3:19 PM

Ron1960, ToT only claims to be a Constitutional scholar. You should know by now that these people have a very interesting way of interpreting Constitutional law, especially when it comes to civil rights, and have showed time and again that only 'certain' people are afforded those rights.

Want to get married so you have the same rights as other married couples? Then you must be heterosexual. Even though you pay taxes of course.

Poor, get into trouble, and need a lawyer to interpret the very difficult law? Too bad! Pay for one yourself or don't get into trouble even though it's merely an accusation!

And speak English while you're at it!

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

May-30-13 2:58 PM

TiredOfTax, what an illogical piece of rubbish in comparing the US Medicaid numbers to UK and France.

Now you're literally just throwing anything at the wall to see ifit'll stick.

3 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Ron1960

May-30-13 2:11 PM

ToT, First of all the president can not spend money with out the congress approves it. So just maybe you should read and understand the constitution and learn something about how your governments work and stop trying to convince everyone that the government should work only as you think it should. Your not half as smart as you think you are.

4 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

May-30-13 2:04 PM

72,600,000: Record Number on Medicaid in 2012; Outnumbers Populations of France and UK

The most recent statistics from the United States Census Bureau-- from December 2012-- puts the number of households in the United States at 115,310,000. If you divide 115,310,000 by 23,087,866, that equals one out of every five households now receiving food stamps.

There are more Americans dependent on the federal government than ever before in U.S. history. According to the Survey of Income and Program Participation conducted by the U.S. Census, well over 100 million Americans are enrolled in at least one welfare program run by the federal government.

Sounds very communistic to me!

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

TiredOfTax

May-30-13 1:53 PM

The proof is in the history of the past few years, unless you have lived under a rock. The government takeover have indeed socialised medicine, and as government spending is really skyrocketed unless they get way more taxation they are headed to the brick wall. Your largess in charge is a liar, and a spender. He loves it and so do his worshipers, like you.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

rschweizer

May-30-13 1:22 PM

MrBoB51, subsequent posts show a 50/50 split? You sure about that? Because it seems like 90% of half of those 50/50's are ToT and drugs running in circles saying the same thing over and over.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

MrBoB51

May-30-13 1:12 PM

What exactly is a 'DC Insider'??? Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Ask 5 people, get 5 different answers. So what? At this point what difference does it make? His progressive ideology is what matters first and last. Annarondacs' opening post revels the actual problem; instead of believing in the Bill of Rights progressives believe in a Bill of Equal Circumstances and Outcome. Subsequent posts show a 50-50 split. VERY reveling indeed, as in waay too many weak collectivists out there.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 63 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web