Tuesday, Dec. 6, 2016    Login | Register        

Rep. Westmoreland: Healthcare vote fundamentally alters nation

The Democrat victory on healthcare Sunday night “will fundamentally alter the nature of our nation by implementing a government takeover of healthcare that Americans don’t want and can’t afford,” said U.S. Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Grantville).

The Democratic healthcare plan passed 219-212.

“This vote creates an expensive new entitlement that implements a government takeover of one-sixth of the American economy,” the Third District congressman said. “This law will raise taxes on all Americans, it will kill jobs in a lagging economy, it will put mandates on Americans and on businesses, it will put government in between doctors and their patients, it will raise the premiums of people who currently have insurance.

“The Democratic healthcare bill will add $2.6 trillion in new spending. There’s no free lunch,” Westmoreland said. “We’ll either tax ourselves to the point we’re not competitive internationally or we’ll simply add on more and more debt. Regardless, the bottom line is we cannot afford this new entitlement.

“We have bills that as a nation we can’t pay as it is. Now we’re adding on more stress to an overburdened system. Our debt obligations threaten to put our economy in critical care, and we’re crippling the ability of innovative Americans to create new jobs,” the former Fayette County resident said.

“There’s no doubt that there are many Americans facing tragic situations because they lack health insurance. Many more are underinsured and millions live in fear of losing their coverage. By opposing this legislation, we are not belittling or ignoring the real crisis in our nation’s health care system. Republicans have put forth responsible reforms that have fallen on deaf ears with this Democratic Congress and administration. No matter how great our desire to cover each and every American who lacks coverage, we do not serve the greater good if our actions bankrupt our nation,” Westmoreland said.



Your discussion brings out good points. There is a commercial on TV - where one person does a 'small act of kindness' to another - and this act encourages another person to help someone else during the day. A good example of 'personal responsibility' in action. I agree that this country is extremely generous - giving through churches, organizations, and through government money. The acrimony in some statements disguises what I'm sure are the good hearts represented on this board.

Define - "unfortunate".

The dictionary version is
- not favored by fortune; marked or accompanied by or resulting in ill fortune;
-"an unfortunate turn of events";
-"an unfortunate decision ...
- inauspicious: not auspicious; boding ill
- a person who suffers misfortune

Make no mistake, there are "unfortunate" people in the U.S., and most Americans are unfortunate to have Congressman and Senators that don't listen to their opinions.

However, there are those that are categorized as "unfortunate" when the truth of the matter is that they made wrong decisions that put them where they are. They could have dropped out of high school to pursue a career (unsuccessfully) as a rapper and now can't find a job, or perhaps decided to try meth "just once" to see what it was like and ended up losing their job and their family and are now living on the street. These are not "unfortunate" people. They are people that made very bad choices.

What is your definition of "unfortunate"?

PTC Observer's picture

I would add to Lindsey's comments by asking all of you that still have on your rose colored glasses to visit


You will note that our nation is broke and I don't believe that there is any turning the debt clock backward.

So, President O can just keep heaping it on and the financial collapse will come that much quicker. You can go on and on about how we "deserve" quality health care all you want but the fact is no one deserves or has the "right" to health care. It is a service just like ordering burgers and no one has the "right" to burgers either.

<cite>I don't believe that there is any turning the debt clock backward.</cite>

That was said when FDR took over from Hoover and Clinton took over from Bush(the father). JUST WATCH!!!!!

PTC Observer's picture

I am afraid that is all we can do is watch.

FDR did in fact take over from Hoover, if you read a little history you will find that Hoover was a Progressive and much of what followed in the FDR period was an implementation of Hoover's "master plan" to regulate and "manage" the economy. He was no friend of capitalism.

Of course you wouldn't have learned this in public school.

As for Clinton and Bush there is not a wit of difference in the two.

So, there you go.

Herbert Hoover Quote: "Every time the government is forced to act, we lose something in self-reliance, character, and initiative."

So the government didn't act - and in 1930, the US suffered from 'inaction'.
Oops - learned this in public school. Our public schools must return to excellence - so that we are not at the mercy of just a few with limited educational resources.

<cite>Progressivism is a political attitude favoring or advocating changes or reform. Progressivism is often viewed in opposition to conservative or reactionary ideologies. The Progressive Movement began in cities with settlement workers and reformers who were interested in helping those facing harsh conditions at home and at work. The reformers spoke out about the need for laws regulating tenement housing and child labor. They also called for better working condition for women.</cite>

Hoover wasn't a Progressive.

PTC Observer's picture

There is no doubt in my mind that this is what you learned in public school.

However misguided you are, the truth is the truth, I would suggest you read in more detail on this subject, you will find the truth if you seek it.

A brief summary of this period of history outside the liberal mainstream can be found in:

How Capitalism Saved American by Thomas J. DiLorenzo

For a more indepth study of Herbert Hoover as a Progressive you can read:

The Life of Herbert Hoover: Imperfect Visionary, 1918-1928 by Kendrick A. Clements - Vol. 6 of 6.

For a more indepth study of progressivism in the United States you can read progressive thought in their own words by reading:

American Progressivism: A Reader - Ronald J. Pestritto, editor

When you finish then we might have an interesting exchange of views on this subject.

As J.A. Schumpeter said the first thing a man will do for his ideals is lie. This is what we have been fed by our state run schools, lies.

regarding 'Progressives' during Hoovers Administration?

<cite>They attempted to exclude illiterates, African-Americans, and others from voting, and to reduce immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe through devices such as a literacy test. Many Progressives supported prohibition in order to destroy the political power based in saloons. At the same time, women's suffrage was promoted to bring a "purer" female vote into the arena.</cite>
It is important to research and know that 'administrations' cannot be summed up in a label. The early 'progressives' had a 'conservative' element that was detrimental to true democracy - yet note, women received the 'vote' before those of a different hue were allowed to vote. Hmmmmmm. Labels aren't as telling as 'actions'. History is far more interesting when one is exposed to ALL of history - and the different views that 'writers' of history bring to their work. Labels mean little in describing current actions of government'.

S. Lindsey's picture

and I am so glad you think we should judge the present by the past..

"<cite>In a recent speech to the NAACP, Vice President Gore said his father lost his Senate seat because he supported civil rights legislation. Fellow black Americans, let me set history straight. Al Gore, Sr., together with the rest of the southern Democrats, voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.</cite>"


But I guess now you will say all those democrats are now the Republican party..

Spin on DM Spin on.. btw.. Check out who voted against the 64 act.. Shocker those still in CONGRESS ARE STILL DEMOCRATS.... Those that aren't still in Congress retired as DEMOCRATS..

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

Maybe if you had gone to a good public school where different views/concepts/analysis of history were actually taught - you'd realize that educated persons have known this fact for some time. It is a fact Lindsey - the South lost the Dixie Democrats (they became Southern Republicans) at the signing of the Voting Rights Act. What is your point? We followed Strom Thurmond and Byrd, both astute politicians, as they added blacks to their staffs, etc. This isn't spin - it's history. Check it out. Republicans of today MAY not have the same attitude towards blacks. There are black Republicans. What's your point Lindsey? Did you just find this out? Or did you find it out when Gore was running for President - and the Republican Party hoped that this would turn the black vote against Gore? Politics, politics, politics - a funny/ugly game at times.

S. Lindsey's picture

also won my bet.. You turned Democrats into Republicans.. Strange you and Obama have the same gift..

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

Thanks for the compliment - but give the Republicans of today some credit. They have made their current platform quite clear. Lyndon Johnson did the 'magic' trick and turned the Southern Democrats over to the Republicans by signing the Voting Rights act in the 60's. Maybe that was left out of your history books. I understand that Texas is going to re-write their history books - and leave Thomas Jefferson out of it. Oh well . . . perceived supremacy is hard to lose. Good night.

S. Lindsey's picture

Who has a sitting Grand Wizard of the Klan in it's rolls? Hint not the Republicans..

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

I don't think the Grand Wizards of the Klan (who were Democrats) are representative of the Democrats (or Republicans for that matter) of today. Take a look at their backgrounds. They influenced the thought of the Southern Democrats who found it unthinkable that 'blacks' be allowed to vote.. .hence most southern Democrats joined the Republican Party after the signing of the Voting Rights Act. (Look it up - it's factual history) I'm sure there are some other accounts of the men that are listed below. Please share. I know that Republicans today are not the Southern Republicans of the 60's. Right? Thanks!

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nathan_Bedford_Forrest">Nathan Bedford Forrest</a href>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_J._Simmons">William J. Simmons</a href>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiram_Wesley_Evans"> Hiram Wesley Evans</a href>

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Colescott">James Colescott</a href>

I would be interested to know what you were taught about this period in our history.

PTC Observer's picture

Please re-read my post

My point was that the Progressives of the early 20th century, excluded some constituencies at the expense of others. The KKK was among the groups that gained power under the Roosevelt, Taft, and Wilson Administrations. Progressives all. Wilson was particularly careful not to offend this political force during his run for the Presidency.

The Progressive movement is and was a relentless march toward a socialist revolution within the US. We are continuing that march today. With the possible exception of Ronald Reagan this move toward social "equality" has not abated. Ultimately, democracy will lead us to fascism and socialism.

Squabbling about shifting power between political parties is immaterial as both parties have essentially continued to codify and reinforce the socialist philosophy begun in the late 19th century. We should focus on the real problem, the power of the state.

I agree - squabbling is irrelevant. You have an interesting take on the history of the Progressive Party. Click below for more information.

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_Party_%28United_States,_1924-46... HERE</A HREF>

PTC Observer's picture

I was not referring specifically to the Progressive Party but to the Progressive movement. Certainly the Party played a significant early role in the development of a socialist platform, but the socialist movement began before the Progressive party. It coincided with the end of the Civil War and the resulting increase in power of the central government, increased population in the cities, immigration from Europe and the growth of power within labor organizations.

If you are interested in some books on the early development of the Progressive (Socialist) movement in the United States let me know. I think I have already given you enough material to digest and did so in order to broaden your understanding of the truth concerning Hoover and the Progressive era.

The progressive movement is continuing today under the leadership of the Democratic Party, however as I mentioned earlier the Republicans out of political expediancy have moved toward the socialist agenda. I see nothing changing these dynamics as both parties move further left.

doright's picture

Looks like someone is watching a lot of Glenn Beck and Fox News.

PTC Observer's picture

Since you know B. Franklin's pen name and know something of history, it appears that you question the facts presented. Please explain your objection or present your position. Then we could have a dialog. Or should we simply expect little quips out of you without any substance?

BTW - Glenn Beck while marginally correct on a number of issues, is "flakey". This is the problem with most "right wing" spokespeople, they simply go off the deep end and become irrational.

S. Lindsey's picture

The Progressive movement is a movement between both parties.. John McCain George W Bush and many others are progressive participants. Obama is the first President to actively out themselves as progressive.

They now have no fear in announcing their progressive agenda.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

I'm happy to read your references - if you admit to reading mine. As you can see, we both have quite a different take on the history of the Progressive Movement. We seem to have a different take on the 'Truth' of the movement and it's goals.

<a href="http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1061.html">CLICK HERE FOR ANOTHER POINT OF VIEW<A HREF>

<A HREF="http://www.lotsofessays.com/viewpaper/1692643.html">CLICK HERE FOR A WOMEN'S POINT OF VIEW</A HREF>

<A HREF="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rupert-russell/will-obamas-presidency-en_b... HERE FOR A DIFFERENT VIEW ON OBAMA AND PROGRESSIVE MOVEMENT</A HREF>

PTC Observer's picture

OK done,

that was pretty easy reading, now what is your point?

You are clearly a progressive and I am not, so.....?

Just broadening our knowledge. Thanks. There are different points of views - that's the point. Have a pleasant weekend.

PTC Observer's picture

Good, I have used yours to broaden my knowledge of you; let me know when you finish the works I recommended and perhaps you can learn some actual facts. Then we can have a "broad" dialog.

You have a good weekend too. ;-)

The response that you received proves that age does not always bring wisdom.

PTC Observer's picture

You know of course "intellectuals" are not interested in facts or truth, they are interested framing their argument based on emotion and how they "feel" things should be.

This is what has gotten us into the sorry state of affairs we are in today. They are really good talkers and deal in ideas but not reality.

You will never persuade them with facts, it's simply not in their nature.

I'm so glad that you now know more about me - and you consider me a Progressive. Please help me. What is it about your beliefs that make you a non-Progressive?

PTC Observer's picture

I will address these at the top of the string as the reply column is getting too narrow.

Have you noticed how some people like to keep picking at old wounds so that they never heal?

It was PTC and Lindsey who brought the Klan into this discussion - not DM. Right? Just made a few clarifying comments based on 'fact'. Actually, it's no longer a wound - just a sad part of our American history. When one looks at ALL of our history - we as Americans are making great progress.

S. Lindsey's picture

and a Grand Wizard at that... He didn't switch party's did he? Sort of shoots holes in that theory that all RACIST Democrats just became Republicans..

"one typical tirade as the floor manager for the segregationists, Byrd actually made the argument that the writers of the Declaration of Independence simply “did not intend that these words should be taken literally to be true” when they wrote that “all men are created equal.” While invoking this hallowed line from the Declaration, Byrd says:

“Men and races of men differ in appearance, ways, physical power, mental capacity, creativity, and vision. One man is born blind. Another is born lame. Geniuses are not made; they are born. Between two individuals, as between two races, there are broad differences.”

"Byrd found King and his successful non-violent civil rights tactics particularly disagreeable. In fact, Byrd even volunteered to help discredit King, as Byrd was worried about a successful non-violent protest coming to Washington. Byrd initiated contact with the FBI in early 1968, suggesting that he give a speech condemning King on the floor of the Senate. Byrd said that it was time Dr. King “met his Waterloo,” but, interestingly, the FBI declined to avail themselves of Byrd’s “services.”5

Byrd’s 1964 filibuster goes from bad to worse after desecrating Jefferson’s most memorable line. At one point, continuing to emphasize what he believed was a fundamental inequality between the races, Byrd actually introduced a “study” by a Frank Boaz, author of the book "The Mind of Primitive Man." The book certainly was primitive, making the case at one point that white brains actually weighed a few grams more than black brains, with the resulting conclusion that whites were necessarily more intelligent. Byrd does not tell us how many brains were studied in this particular effort. "Human Events 2002

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

Read the factual history of the Civil Rights vote. Southern Republicans and Democrats opposed the measure. Byrd may have retained his hateful ideology - but Johnson was right. . .the south became the stronghold of the 'new' Republican Party - following the leadership of one Barry Goldwater. (Note his vote.)

Ultimately, on June 19, the substitute (compromise) bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73-27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. <STRONG>Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, referring to the Democratic Party, "We have lost the South for a generation."</STRONG>[8]
[edit] Vote totals

Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:

* The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
* Cloture in the Senate: 71-29 (71%-29%)
* The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
* The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)

[edit] By party

The original House version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%-39%)
* Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)

Cloture in the Senate:[10]

* Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%-34%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version:[9]

* Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%-31%)
* Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:[9]

* Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
* Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)

[edit] By party and region

<STRONG>Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.</STRONG>

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)


S. Lindsey's picture

I don't have to had of been there to be able to read the varying versions of History DM and yes there are many..

I read a "version" of history written by an agnostic that said the Pilgrims where all atheist that fled England to be able to get away from GOD.. This version was actually taught in New York Elementary schools for some time..in the 70's.

It was raised once again in the Texas Schoolbook debate. That History had no basis in fact though that did not stop it from being taught as "gospel" pun intended.

You said Dixiecrats all changed to become the Republicans..

Now the Dixiecrats were a splinter movement from the democrats in an attempt to sway the election in 1948.. After the election they disbanded.. Now skip ahead about 20 years.. The 1964 Civil Rights act was championed by the Republicans and voted against by most of the Democrats.

<strong>Using your logic</strong>

Then the opposite would have occurred on the 64 act.. The "Racist Democrats" who "changed" over to the Republicans would have stood against that act.. while the "NEW" democrats would have been the ones promoting it..

That's not what occurred.. You may read into history whatever you so desire but you cannot change that basic fact..

The very same democrats that in 64 voted against the act STAYED democrats.. It is easy to check DM..

Gore Sr. voted AGAINST the act and he was a DEMOCRAT until he retired.. Byrd voted against it and is still a DEMOCRAT. All of them are STILL DEMOCRATS.. So your theory that the Dixiecrats became the Republicans of today does not hold water.

You can keep trying to obfuscate that fact by throwing out garbage from the Confederacy.. I am speaking of more recent history as in just 1964..

"<strong><cite>Republicans favored the bill 138 to 34; Democrats supported it 152-96. Republicans supported it in higher proportions than Democrats. Even though those Democrats were Southern segregationists, without Republicans the bill would have failed. Republicans were the other much-needed leg of the Civil Rights Act of 1964."</strong></cite>

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

You are dizzy - stop spinning. The facts are there. . . note, we're talking about SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS - who did not support the bill. Byrd remains - as a Democrat. Come on Lindsey - how many Democrats can be elected from the South today? Leave Atlanta - and Georgia is Republican. Zell Miller used to be a Democrat - but honestly best represents his constituents as a Republican. If the Southern Democrats were NOT RACIST in their ideology, why didn't they support the 1964 Act? Today - I would not call a Republican or a Democrat racist unless their actions supported that claim. However - history and I stand by the FACT that Southern Democrats and Southern Republicans who did not support the Act were racists. AND AFTER LYNDON JOHNSON SIGNED THE BILL - THE SOUTH WENT REPUBLICAN - AND FOLLOWED GOLDWATER AND REAGAN. (and even tho Carter is a Southerner, the South tries to disown him) This is fun. Bye.

S. Lindsey's picture

but go ahead try to EXPLAIN away the 1964 DEMOCRATs that remained DEMOCRATS and still are TODAY.. You have been bought and paid for again and all they asked in return was a vote.. Morals are bought cheap these days..

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

The original House version:

* Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
* Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)

* Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
* Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)

The Senate version:

* Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
* Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
* Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
* Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)

S. Lindsey's picture

It just makes their "hated" justified..

"Most of the Dixiecrats did not become Republicans. They created the Dixiecrats and then, when the civil rights movement succeeded, they returned to the Democratic fold. It was not till much later, with a new, younger breed of Southerner and the thousands of Northerners moving into the South, that Republicans began to make gains.

I know. I was there.

When I moved to Georgia in 1970, the Democratic Party had a total lock on Georgia. Newt Gingrich was one of the first "outsiders" to break that lock. He did so in a West Georgia area into which many Northerners were moving. He gained the support of rural West Georgians over issues that had absolutely nothing to do with race.

In fact, very few party switches came about right after the Civil Rights Act was passed. Some exceptions who did switch were Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms." Diann Alden


"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

Hate to pull a wiki on you but:
Gore was one of only three Democratic senators from the eleven former Confederate states who did not sign the 1956 Southern Manifesto opposing integration, the other two being Senate Majority Leader Lyndon B. Johnson (who was not asked to sign) and Gore's fellow Tennessean Estes Kefauver, who refused to sign. South Carolina Senator J. Strom Thurmond tried to get Gore to sign the Southern Manifesto, but was told "Hell no" by Gore. AND By 1970, Gore was considered to be fairly vulnerable for a three-term incumbent Senator, as a result of his liberal positions on many issues such as the Vietnam War and Civil Rights.
Goes on to mention other internal state issues & personalities.
I doubt Al, Jr would say Al, Sr was prejudice free. From my family history it is an evolving process.

PTC Observer's picture

Interestingly, during the Progressive Era the KKK was at its zenith. It is not suprising that they attempted to include some at the expense of others. Their goal was a socialist revolution not equality.

Thank you. What other books did you read regarding the Hoover administration? Did you have an opportunity to discuss other views of this period - or were you told that the 'other' views were 'lies'? Thank heavens for teachers who exposed me to ALL views of history - and encouraged me to think for myself rather than calling those with a different view - liars. I've taken the time to read more of the current 'conservative' views since moving here to Georgia. Fortunately I had teachers who exposed me to these views throughout my 'public' education. Conservative views on many issues that were important to me were contrary to my personal quest for freedom as a woman and as a minority. Reading more than 'conservative' views broadens ones understanding. A liberal's view is not necessarily a 'lie'. A conservative's view is not necessarily a 'lie'. If I feel that you have this understanding - I would enjoy having a discussion with you.

PTC Observer's picture

Perhaps I should clarify, lies are things that have no basis in fact. The fact is that the view of the Hoover administration taught by public schools has no basis in fact. This will be revealed to you if you study history.

History is something, apparently, that the public education system believes is not very material to future citizens as evidenced by their continued marginalization of it in public curriculum.

I have not concentrated my studies specifically on the Hoover administration however I do believe that I have a firm grasp of the facts. You like most within the current education system have been consumed by it. I don’t consider this your fault by any means; you are simply a victim of it.

Trust me madame, I am no conservative. However, I do attempt to seek the truth and the truth shall set us free.

Git Real's picture

How can you reason with someone like this?

<strong>Wisdom is the right use of knowledge. To know is not to be wise. Many men (and David's Mom and Bonker$) know a great deal, are all the greater fools for it. There is no fool so great a fool as a knowing fool. But to know how to use knowledge is to have wisdom. - Charles Spurgeon</strong>

Thought processes from people like DM & Bonkie that apply knowledge without common sense and wisdom are the root of this nations problems. Our government is filled with their types. In successful times... people like them were laughed at and not taken seriously.

Those that can't..... enter gumament and rely on it for their success.

On to bigger and better things.

<em><strong>Stupid can't be fixed. We can only vote him out</strong></em>

Now that you can afford health care for your employees - you have time to 'play'. Geeeez

Git Real's picture

I've always been able to provide healthcare for my employees. You are so predictable DM. Nothing more than a bigoted old smart a$$ that sees no shame in raping the producers.

I was at Sams the other day following a male and female fat ass into the store. Each one EASILY weighed over 300 pounds. I was stunned at the obesity. As they shuffled through the doors blocking the path of others I couldn't help but wonder once again... Why is it that the hard working producers in this country are the ones responsible for taking care of such useless, leaching compost makers like that. Sound harsh??? Perhaps it is. Harsh is a response one gets when being robbed at the point of gun.

Slither on DM.

<em><strong>Stupid can't be fixed. We can only vote him out</strong></em>

Was the overweight couple robbing Sams or did they pay for what they purchased?
They may have wondered why you were in there. Do you feel that because people are overweight - they are not producers? Hmmmm - you're back - and in rare form. What a shame to judge people by their weight - or because they are in a store that sells discount items (why were you there?) Bravo brave producer!! So glad to hear that you are providing health insurance for your 50+ employees. Congratulations!!!!

Git Real's picture

<strong>Was the overweight couple robbing Sams or did they pay for what they purchased?</strong>

Foolish woman... there is no possible way these manatees could have robbed Sams lest it be by proxy. As long as it takes the Clayton County Police to respond to an incident, I highly doubt these two could have shuffled their way out the door before a front end loader could have been dispatched to hoist them in back of a dump truck. Rob Sams? What is your point?

<strong>Do you feel that because people are overweight - they are not producers?</strong>

Well there is always an exception to the rule. Were you an exception?

<strong>What a shame to judge people by their weight - or because they are in a store that sells discount items</strong>

Hmmmm... OMG...I judged them because they were at a discount store??? Gee DM... Where do you come up with that crap? But yes...I do judge (use practical discernment) when observing people. And you would be a liar if you claimed otherwise for yourself. Nobody in their right mind would have concluded otherwise after observing this sloppy pair. Cept maybe you DM. But then we all know that you only see what you want to see.

<strong>Bravo brave producer!!</strong>


<strong>So glad to hear that you are providing health insurance for your 50+ employees. Congratulations!!!!</strong>

You really are an envious and jealous being aren't you?

<em><strong>Stupid can't be fixed. We can only vote him out</strong></em>

Were these horrible people you saw at Sam's white, black, Puerto Rican, Indian, Eskimo, Mulatto, or Oriental?
I assume you meant also that they used a welfare debit card?

I think that there are more severely obese whites than any of the other types listed above, so that is why I ask.

I think the Germans in the 1930s-1940s, led by the "Leader" would have bunched them in with the Jews, don't you?
By "them" I of course don't mean the Aryan ones!

Mind saying how much you pay and how much your employees pay for their health insurance and what are the limitations of the policy? Is there a deductible?
Do your part-timers get any health insurance, how many are there?
You bragged about it, so fess up.

Git Real's picture

What does color have to do with? Why isn't our resident bigot DM calling you out on the carpet for bringing race into this? You old fool... don't you know most of the people on welfare are white? And what does race have to with the fact that I'm having to pay the healthcare of unproductive citizens who are such mostly by choice?

<strong>Mind saying how much you pay and how much your employees pay for their health insurance and what are the limitations of the policy?</strong>

I foot the bill fool.

<strong>Is there a deductible?</strong>

Why of course Bonker$. Question.... Does the insured bare ANY responsibility for the cost or maintenance of their personal healthcare???

<strong>Do your part-timers get any health insurance,</strong>

What part-timers???

<strong>how many are there?</strong>

Between 15 and 3000. Your point?

<strong>You bragged about it, so fess up.</strong>

At least I have something to brag about. No pay cuts, no benefit cuts, no lay-offs and all that in spite of increasing taxes, increased gumament compliance and reporting and not mention no HOPE over the horizon from your president and his boot-strapped thugs.

<em><strong>Stupid can't be fixed. We can only vote him out</strong></em>

You seem to be tired of both the democrats and republicans in general.
By taking that attitude many have created the current influx of strange parties and groups. These groups like you do not talk much about exactly what they want for the average citizen. I mean is available to them.

I have researched the TEAS a little to find out what they want to accomplish.
What I can find on them is that they want "limited government" whatever that is. They want no stimuluses, let those companies go broke and lay their people off.
They don't want the government helping with HD signals for distant areas???
(No, they stressed this! Limit bonuses for executives.. I was surprised by this one. No mortgage bailouts, let all of the foreclosures and storefront fail at once and lay their people off and break their banks.
There are many "Libertarians and "Conservatives in the groups. Lower spending is quoted often, although not in the areas where 80% of our budget is critical.
They consider President Obama a "Socialist Ideologue," whatever that is.

Also in these groups are the John Birchers; Patriots; Birthers; 911 denying people; Gingrich's American Solutions; Freedom Works; and various cranks and conspiracy nuts.

The philosophies of these groups is so diverse and colliding, I can't see where they can organize to do much of anything.

Fact is, the Independents will decide any seats available this fall. Most of these dudes will vote republican or not at all.

Git Real's picture

6 years of a Republican majority and you and the rest of the clowns grow our govenment and increase wasteful gumament spending. Look at the wasteful spending that YOUR senate candidate foisted on us when shoving through that farm bill a couple of years ago.

Instead of ramming through Social Security reform, limiting government, and holding the line on wasteful spending; YOU and the rest of your Republicrat cronies gave the American people 'Democrate Lite' in compromosing with the same slime you criticize in your statement above.

Shame on you Lynn. I'm voting for ANYBODY who runs against you. Your campaign vows from years ago still ring in my ears. "If it grows government, increases spending and....." Hollow words indeed.

Go away you hypocrite. You talk about bankrupting our country as if it were a true concern to you. Guess you only take notice when Democrats waste money.

How hard do you think it is for us producers to actually take your words and contrived concerns seriously?

You are guilty of enabling the left in destroying the economic and liberty foundations that have made this country great. You are NOT part of the solution. You ARE the problem.

Let's get rid of ALL of these clowns this November.

<em><strong>Stupid can't be fixed. We can only vote him out</strong></em>


Ad space area 4 internal