Mr VJP

Welcome to the forums.

I don't have any problem wearing orange when I decide I want to. There are times when I feel I have an advantage when I'm not wearing it. I strongly object to any law that says I must wear it 100% of the time or face monetary penalties. This is not something a law should be able force.

Steve, maybe my responses to your questions don't appear on your PC screen, but I see them on the threads posted right after each question you asked. If you see them, but don't think they answer your questions, perhaps you need to enhance your reading comprehension skills above a negative I.Q. level.

Virgil, if you haven't got the guts, or ability, to post your side of an issue intelligently, you are the one who is Non compos mentis and shamed. What you are doing is posting a "no response", response. Perhaps you are not aware that in fact, you are responding, but not in a relevant way. It's called misdirection. Trying to divert attention from the issue at hand, hoping to obtain allies in vain attempts to disparage posts you have not been able to challenge. It's sad.

Having painted George W. Bush as a torturer, a destroyer of constitutional freedoms, and a villain from the dystopian novel "1984," in true Orwellian fashion, Team Chosen One has arrived full-circle at exactly the same policy positions on terrorist detainees as the Bush administration. Specifically, the Obama administration announced this week that military tribunals would resume, thus implicitly conceding that Guantanamo Bay would likewise remain open for the foreseeable future. The Leftmedia was too busy doing the drug called Charlie Sheen to take full notice. This decision owes to the Hamdan v. Rumsfeld ruling and its congressional backlash, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 that effectively relegates detainee tribunals to Gitmo. Obama's abrupt pirouette was accompanied by not so much as a hint of admission of miscalculation regarding the wisdom of Bush administration policies. The Wall Street Journal summed it up best: "No one has done more to revive the reputation of Bush-era antiterror policies than the Obama Administration." Perhaps its court "win" over terrorist Ahmed Ghailani was a bit too much of an embarrassment for the administration to suffer yet another public drubbing by admitting -- again -- it was wrong. Of course, Americans now recognize Ghailani simply as the terrorist who was acquitted of more than 224 murder counts in a dog-and-pony "showcase" civil trial. They also remember that he was just one acquittal count shy of walking away as a free man, notwithstanding his pivotal role in the bombing of two U.S. embassies in Africa. Incredibly, however, Team Best-and-Brightest still hasn't received the memo, reaffirming its commitment this week to civilian trials for terrorists in the same breath it announced resumption of military tribunals. Apparently, the liberal alternative to admitting an error in judgment is simply to affirm the error while simultaneously back-peddling on actual policy. Finally, the administration also announced it will dispense with a cornerstone of the laws of armed conflict, declaring that the U.S. will now treat as legally binding a radical 1977 add-on to the Geneva Conventions, a protocol rejected since the Reagan administration. This protocol effectively erases the otherwise clear line between lawful and unlawful enemy combatants, effectively de-incentivizing potential enemies to follow the laws of armed conflict. Thus, while terrorists do not respect any of the commonly recognized international combatant rules, American soldiers will now be forced to treat them as though they do, affording them protections they do not deserve and ultimately putting even more American lives at risk.

The national average for gas is approaching $4 per gallon, once again causing pain at the pump. According to the U.S. Energy Department, the average yearly cost for an American family to fill up the car with gas will rise 28 percent from last year, or about $700. A family can't lose that much money without also losing the ability to buy other goods or services. The price of gasoline has skyrocketed by 67 percent since Barack Obama took office, but, needless to say, he isn't letting this crisis go to waste. The fact is that Obama's energy policy is working exactly the way it was designed to work. His intent is to drive up the price of fossil fuels in order to make alternative energy sources seem more appealing. Alternative sources have been heavily subsidized for years and yet still can't rival fossil fuels, so, Obama reasons, prices on the latter must be driven higher. In 2008, now-Energy Secretary Steven Chu said, "Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe." Obama began work on that less than one month after taking office in 2009 by reversing George W. Bush's expansion of offshore oil drilling. When the BP Deepwater Horizon spill occurred in April 2010, the administration took this as a golden opportunity to enact a moratorium on offshore drilling. Despite multiple court rulings against that moratorium and even being ruled in contempt, however, the administration persists with its policy.

If one British health official has her way, the newest casualties of that country's government-run health care system will be its most helpless and vulnerable citizens. Dr. Daphne Austin, a National Health Service (NHS) consultant who provides advice on health funding allocation, is suggesting that babies born after only 23 weeks of pregnancy or sooner be left to die. She claims doctors are "doing more harm than good by resuscitating 23-weekers," that treatments have "very marginal benefit," and that money would be better spent "providing support to people who have much more lifelong chronic conditions." Translated: lives have relative fiscal value, and 23-weekers come up short. Ironically, Austin actually suggests she's speaking for the babies: "There's a lot of emphasis on the parents' views and what they want. But somewhere in there, there needs to be an advocate for the baby." If she's the best advocate these tiny lives have, heaven help them. Yet that's what one gets in the zero-sum world of government health care where "death panels" are alive and well. The objections raised by government health care advocates at even the suggestion that death panels will come to the U.S. are as meaningless as all leftist denials throughout the decades. Should ObamaCare survive, Britain's system foreshadows where we're headed.

Barack Obama has hired yet another czar -- this time a "Cabinet czar" to serve as a liaison to his own Cabinet. Media adviser Tom Gavin has been appointed to serve as Cabinet communications director, and his job description is "to better coordinate with and utilize members of the Cabinet." Isn't the president the Cabinet czar? We suppose Obama is too busy being the golf czar and needs a Cabinet czar to keep those pests from interfering with his game.

The Department of Health and Human Services issued another 126 waivers to ObamaCare this week, bringing the total number of exemptions to 1,040. The exempted groups -- corporations, non-profits, unions and other entities -- have been allowed to maintain their current insurance schemes for at least one year because they have proven in some fashion that ObamaCare's insurance mandates would cause financial harm. Additionally, the state of Maine has received a three-year waiver to opt out of the requirement that insurers spend at least 80 percent of the premiums received on medical care. If ObamaCare is so well put together, why the need for all these backdoor exits? One reason is that they will no doubt be offered to unions and blue states in exchange for political favors in 2012. This new strategy of lenience in administering the president's signature legislation is a subtle admission that ObamaCare doesn't work as an insurance program -- but it becomes more evident every day that it works just fine as a political payoff tool. The administration's painfully slow march through the courts in defense of the law struck down by Judge Roger Vinson in January is another example of this admission. The administration hopes that by stretching out the appeals process as long as possible, they may be able to build up ObamaCare to such an extent that the Supreme Court won't strike it down. They plan to do this by implementing various aspects of the law with an automatic funding mechanism that has effectively hidden $105 billion in the budget. As Nancy Pelosi said, "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." Republicans are working to repeal this portion of the law.

But they are not letting me know anything about the substance of the posts. Only that they are unhappy I posted it by resorting to insults and personal comments, non of which give any clue as to what you guys think on the issues. Here's something I will tell you about where people like me are coming from that can be discussed at great length as well. As a matter of fact, all of my posts are coming to you from this viewpoint. Our view is that liberalism is a mental disorder characterized by narcissism, victimhood and paranoia. Its end result will be the apocalyptic Nanny State and a long, slow collapse into third world status.

[tt]This may rile up a few people even more. Try and stick to the article when you respond. I would really like to know what makes the Leftist mind tick. I have no interest in the Leftist opinion of my person, just the article. http://www.amerika.org/politics/our-corporate-overlords/ [/tt]

I have no problem with being attacked, but it doesn't do anything to advance your side of the issue. I realize at least half of America doesn't agree with what I post. But half of the country does. What I would like to see is commentary for the Leftist half explaining their side of these issues, because in all honesty, I can not fathom what in the world they are thinking. As far as my patriotism goes, let me try to explain something. I love this country, as does my entire extended family. Many of us have served in the military with great honor. Many of my nephews are currently serving. My sister is a Lt Col. in the USAF today. My father, brothers, sisters, uncles and cousins have all served honorably at one time or another. One was a Lt. Col in the USMC who flew fighters from Korea through Vietnam. And we all have one thing in common. We are not happy with the current administration or the entire US Government for that matter. The direction and path this country is currently taking is wrong and we feel we have more than earned the right to speak freely about it in any forum we choose. Those that try to silence us have no belief in the first amendment, or America as it is meant to be, and always has been. If you are offended by what I post, it doesn't concern me. Offense cannot be given, only taken. If you haven't got the guts, or ability, to post your side of an issue intelligently, you are the one who is shamed.

Talk about just posting opinion without facts. : Why is it you never address or challenge any of the issues in the articles I post with some factual information to prove it wrong, if you are so sure it is? I don't write these things. I post them because I believe they are thoughtful, intelligent, commentary on current events. You are free to disagree with them all you like, but attacking me personally is just, as I have pointed out in the past, mean spirited, mindless insults from a fool. These posts rile you because you don't agree with them, but haven't the ability to factually debate them. Resorting to personal insults without any reference to the article is an admittance you have no knowledge of the subject matter at hand. It would be better if you sulked on the sidelines rather than reply to my posts like that. That way we could keep the thread civil, like the progressives claim they would like to see happening these days.

I don't expect any leftist to take me seriously. I don't expect they take any serious matter seriously. Part of the leftist manifesto is complete denial of facts.

1. Presidents don't have the power to spend money or make laws, Congress does. 2. During that 66 years, Democrat Presidents have had Democrat controlled houses of Congress twice as often as Republican Presidents have had Republican controlled houses. I.E. Willing accomplices in money spending. 3. Once money is spent after Congress makes it law and the President signs it, it is gone and can not be retrieved. Which is exactly what Obama did when he had a Democrat controlled Congress for two years. 4. The American people had enough, threw out enough of the spendthrift Dems in the House to put a stop to Obama's spending. But they left the new Republican House with the task of trying to prevent future spending, and unable to reverse socialist laws like Obamacare because they do not have control of the Senate. 5. When, on rare occasion, the Republicans do have a sitting President with a Republican House and Senate, they pass laws to reign in the Democrat installed government bloating and wayward spending as much as possible. But the Democrats are like thieves who steal from the taxpayers and pass the money out to their supporters as fast as they can, so getting it back later is not even possible. The idiot electorate never seems to realize things are not as simple to fix as they are to break. That's why they keep electing Presidents like Obama and regretting it later. Because each time a seriously Leftist President takes power, with a willing Democrat Congress, their zeal for pushing a socialist agenda is boundless, and in most cases, unconstitutional. This is not bitching. This is an attempt, though obviously futile considering some of the readers on this forum, to shine a light on reality and expose the path America is on regarding it's future. What good does it do to complain about where you think we've been, if you can't see where the present events show we are going?

This group is decidedly Leftist and if you trace their history of political affiliations, it is more than obvious. The fact is, the ANNENBERG Public Policy Center (APPC), the sponsoring agency behind FastCheck.org, is itself supported by the same foundation, the ANNENBERG FOUNDATION, that Bill Ayers secured the 49.2 million dollars from to create the Chicago ANNENBERG Challenge “philanthropic” organization in which Barack Obama was the founding Chairman of the Board for and Ayers served as the grant writer of and co-Chair of for its two operating arms. Does the LEFT have no conscience at all?

A little boy got on the bus, sat next to a man reading a book, and noticed he had his collar on backwards The little boy asked why he wore his collar backwards. The man, who was a priest, said, 'I am a Father.' The little boy replied, 'My Daddy doesn't wear his collar like that.' The priest looked up from his book and answered, ''I am the Father of many.' The boy said, ''My Dad has 4 boys, 4 girls and two grandchildren and he doesn't wear his collar that way!' The priest, getting impatient, said. 'I am the Father of hundreds', and went back to reading his book. The little boy sat quietly thinking for a while, then leaned over and said, "Maybe you should wear a condom, and put your pants on backwards, instead of your collar..." ;D

Virgil, I hope you come to realize you are in denial. The world is not passing people by who are like minded as me, it's insidiously sneaking up on people like minded as you. That's not a statement meant to offend, because after your posts, I truly feel you are going to be sorely disappointed in the future. Doewhacker, I hope you realize you just referred us to a sales pitch by the very salesman who Obamacare is named after. Talk about a biased source. BTW a lot of that has already been proven to be a lie. Not paying for abortions is the first falsehood....

If those elected to national office, regardless of political affiliation, fail to abide by their oaths to Support and Defend our Constitution, particularly its limitations on the central government which have been disregarded for much of the last century, then we, the people, will restore the integrity of our Constitution, as is our right and obligation. Rest assured, there will come a time for choosing as outlined by Ronald Reagan, and that time must come. One might recall that our Declaration of Independence and Constitution were the product of civil disobedience and revolution against a lesser form of tyranny than that imposed today. In the words of Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, "The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." For those whom such notions offend, I offer these words of parting from Samuel Adams: "If ye love wealth better than Liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"

This is where the country is headed, and why it's headed there. http://patriotpost.us/alexander/201...socialism/ Pure facts by the way, for anyone who can't identify one.

If you think so, you don't know what a fact is. I've posted things that refer to actual items in the law. They are not my opinions or opinions of the people who are writing about them. They are actual items in the law that will take effect when the law does, and they are scary. You said in your first post on this thread I was inaccurate. You said you knew better and I was misinformed and simply repeating what I have been fed. You claimed to know all of my information was wrong and that I should read an unbiased source. I said show me one. In the end, you posted The Huffington Post article. Like you said earlier about my post, "If you posted it, you take ownership of it." It is clear that you are one of the Obamacare supporters based on blind faith. Now who is really spewing the propaganda they are being fed?

Virgil, that article is from one of the most left wing media organizations on the planet, The Huffington Post. But even if it wasn't, the article is simply a regurgitation of the same old progressive mantra which it sums up in it's conclusion: "The new Affordable Care Act deserves support because, although imperfect, it will provide real help to many Americans and permit us to make real progress toward a better health care system." It gives no factual data in the article about the rules and regulations in the law, nor the actual costs to the country in the future. It is asking Americans to support something based on blind faith to the progressive agenda and ideal, which I believe is a march towards socialism. This article actually supports all that I have posted regarding Obamacare by not addressing any of the public's objections to it. I thought you were questioning the facts I have posted, which you seem to think are opinions, when they are actual provisions in the law. If you can show me where these things are not in the law, I will agree I'm incorrect. But I will not accept this law as good for the country and the future until someone proves to me it will not effectively take from most Americans and give to many who don't deserve it, bankrupt the country and destroy healthcare as we know it, and effectively take over the US Healthcare system.

There is no way anyone can justify or argue that any type of impairment is an improvement to one's physical or mental abilities. My point here is, it shouldn't be a felony or illegal to be an azzhole. It's not a crime, just stupid. If stupidity were outlawed, half the population would be in jail.

The only thing the progressives can say about Obamacare is that it will provide healthcare to "everyone". And that it will do. Including illegals and new immigrants that choose not to work. But when asked, "At what cost though?", they respond with a mealy mouthed reply like, "It doesn't matter." or "It's Free!" : Damn They Dumb! And that's totally accurate!

To sum it all up....It's all about power and control, i.e. Government take over of as much of America as the dumbass electorate will allow it to take over. Call that statement inaccurate......at your own peril!