DescentBB

flip wrote:I wish they all had to be 80 years or older, and gone within 5 years.

flip wrote:I feel the same way TC. I cannot fathom how senators and congressmen serve even up to 50 years! I think principles should rule details. If the principle is sound, then the details take care of themselves. Anyone that serves that long breaks the preeminent principle of our form of government. No one perspective should have ever been allowed to establish itself. I wish they all had to be 80 years or older, and gone within 5 years.

flip wrote:I would be content with 60-65, but 50 seems to be the dumbest age of all. By that time, you have lost all your fear and think you know everything I knew an old lady I cut grass for. 98 years old and sharp as a tack. Used to laugh about how people thought they were old at 60. You don't hit your prime until you hit 40, but at 80 you start thinking about your demise Makes you a little more forward thinking. Plus, most people don't reach an old age with a good mind and body by being stupid. In fact, I imagine you could put any decent person and he could do the job of protecting the principles set forth by the Constitution, the danger then is that he stays in long enough to do damage.

flip wrote:That's not Wisdom then Plus, your still in your 50's

CUDA wrote:REALLY.

My question is "IF" its so important NOT to shut down the government. Then why did the democratic controlled senate take a 3 day weekend not planning on coming back until monday afternoon, KNOWING that the house would make changes to the CR and send it back with the shutdown coming on tuesday? Could it be the democrats WANT to shut down the government?

You people are such stooges. This IS what the democrats want. Stop pretending it isnt.

Krom wrote:The mental gymnastics and contortions you two perform in order to blame the other party never ceases to amuse me.

CUDA wrote:So, are the 17 Democrats that voted with the Republicans to delay the Democare act traitors and anarchists like Harry Reid called the Republicans that voted that way?

And are they UNREASONABLE IDIOTS like you called them?

and now the question is why is the president willing to shut down the government with his veto. The house is willing to fund democare for now. They just want a delay for a year. The same delay that the president gave big business. Plus they want to remove the tax on medical devices. So who is really shutting down the government? It seems to me that the GOP gave them what they wanted. Funding of Democare, but its the democrats and the president that are unwilling to compromise and are threatening to shut down the government, who are the ones not willing to negotiate?

Krom wrote:The mental gymnastics and contortions you two perform in order to blame the other party never ceases to amuse me.

Spidey wrote:Stock market can open down 200 points, just because someone sneezes.

CUDA wrote:So you're willing to give big business a one year break from the law(which is unconstitutional by the way, the president didn't have the authority) but you wont give one to the average American. I thought you were all about the little guy and anti big business. Or is that only when it benefits your party?

CUDA wrote:NO LIFE TIME PENSIONS

woodchip wrote:Yeah slick, lets hope Obama turns into a little dictator, I'm sure that will cure all sorts of ills.

CUDA wrote:

Spidey wrote:Stock market can open down 200 points, just because someone sneezes.

Ya but admitting that wouldn't fit into his political demagoguery.

tunnelcat wrote:Yeah, but only 36% think the government should require every American to buy health insurance. 50% are opposed outright. I'm guessing the 14% undecided will come to a decision very quickly.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ ... h_care_law

What gets me is why do Republicans think all Americans hate Obamacare and that they will side with them in a government shutdown, when Americans clearly re-elected Obama and his mandate? Unless they did it because they hated Romney more than they hated Obamacare.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Spidey wrote:Stock market can open down 200 points, just because someone sneezes.

Ya but admitting that wouldn't fit into his political demagoguery.

uncertainty drives markets down. This bunch of House loons is a steaming pile of uncertainty for the whole nation. They should be rooted out next year and never allowed to return.

callmeslick wrote:

CUDA wrote:

Spidey wrote:Stock market can open down 200 points, just because someone sneezes.

Ya but admitting that wouldn't fit into his political demagoguery.

uncertainty drives markets down. This bunch of House loons is a steaming pile of uncertainty for the whole nation. They should be rooted out next year and never allowed to return.

woodchip wrote:TC I don't think a lot of people really understood how Obamacare was going to affect them...
I think in just the last couple of months the effects are finally starting to be understood.

Citing the Heath and Human Services website, a report posted Wednesday at the Freedom Outpost says that under Obamacare, government agents can engage in “home health visits” for those in certain “high-risk” categories.

Those categories include:

• Families where mom is not yet 21;
• Families where someone is a tobacco user;
• Families where children have low student achievement, developmental delays, or disabilities, and
• Families with individuals who are serving or formerly served in the armed forces, including such families that have members of the armed forces who have had multiple deployments outside the United States.

According to HHS, the visits fall under what is called the “Maternal, Infant and Early Childhood Home Visiting Program” allegedly designed to “help parents and children,” and could impact millions of Americans.

Constitutional attorney and author Kent Masterson Brown said that despite what HHS says, the program is not “voluntary.”

“The eligible entity receiving the grant for performing the home visits is to identify the individuals to be visited and intervene so as to meet the improvement benchmarks,” he said. “A homeschooling family, for instance, may be subject to ‘intervention’ in ‘school readiness’ and ‘social-emotional developmental indicators.’ A farm family may be subject to ‘intervention’ in order to ‘prevent child injuries.’ The sky is the limit.”

Joshua Cook said that while the administration would claim the program only applies to those on Medicaid, the new law, by its own definition, has no such limitation.

“Intervention,” he added, quoting Brown, “may be with any family for any reason. It may also result in the child or children being required to go to certain schools or taking certain medications and vaccines and even having more limited – or no – interaction with parents. The federal government will now set the standards for raising children and will enforce them by home visits.”

According to Cook, the program will require collection of a massive amount of private information including all sources of income and the amount gathered from each source.

One of the areas of emphasis mentioned by HHS is the “development of comprehensive early childhood systems that span the prenatal-through-age-eight continuum.”

Last session, Cook added, South Carolina State Rep. Bill Chumley introduced a measure that would make the forced home visitations illegal in his state. The measure passed in the House but died in the Senate.

tunnelcat wrote:

woodchip wrote:TC I don't think a lot of people really understood how Obamacare was going to affect them...
I think in just the last couple of months the effects are finally starting to be understood.

Problem is, some people are going to be happy, and others aren't. The law will only survive if most people end up happy with what they get, which I'm guessing will not be the case once it gets going full steam. If that happens, Republicans will get their wish. That's why they should quit griping and holding the government hostage. All they have to do is wait for it.......