The End of the American Century?

[dungeonbaby]

he is one of ten in homeland security with high positions. apparently.

[maxiev]

 

 

Hi, all. Meet Mohamed Elibiary. He's an open supporter of the Muslim Brotherhood and Sharia'a. He's a close friend and supporter of Shukri Abu Baker, who was convicted of using a charity to fund our friendly terrorist organization, Hamas. He was a staunch supporter and contributor.

 

He is also a member of our Department of Homeland Security Advisory Council and unequivocal has complete access to classified information. Beautiful.

 

he is one of ten in homeland security with high positions. apparently.

How was a guy like this able to rise to such a high position in the DHS given the very stringent screening in hiring and promotion? Especially in sensitive positions such as that found in the Department of Homeland Security.

[dungeonbaby]

I don't need to debate Obamacare with you. The 2009 Affordable Health Care Act was debated upon and passed into law in the United States. It is the law. Whether we like it or not, it has to be implemented. If the Tea Party Republicans despise it, they should pass another law to repeal it. But as long as no such law is passed repealing Obamacare, leave it out of the Appropriations Act.

 

no, you don't need to debate anything with me. i just thought you might relish the chance to explain which among the tea party's arguments vs implementing Obamacare is moronic. thought you might also know, since it is the law like you rightly say, why or how the president changed the law so that certain corporate entities got a waiver? and if corporations got it, why can't individuals get the same waiver? after all, isn't that what republicans want? a one-year waiver until they figured out all the effects the act would have?

 

The Republicans are luring the American public to an Obamacare debate when it has really nothing to do with the current Appropriations Act. The result is that the first few days, several U.S. agencies and services were shut down. Ironically, the implementation of the Affordable Health Care Act proceeded as other government agencies shut down.

 

and what a success that implementation was. so successful that the president himself had to disavow major aspects of its implementation. or maybe i'm wrong. i could be wrong.

 

 

As if America can afford it, the Republicans yet again hand it another self-inflicted crisis. Credit downgrade, sequestration, government shutdown, what's next?

 

speaking of being able to afford anything, what about these nasty, selfish republicans, making the people buy things the country can't pay for.

 

Philippine Daily Inquirer

9:55 pm | Thursday, October 3rd, 2013

...

 

Let's just say it: Insurgent Republicans have a problem with their country's first black president.

 

new high for the inquirer - calling republicans racist without proof. i wonder, too, if the editors were aware that obamacare was upheld by the supreme court because it was considered a tax which, while within the government's right to impose, was an appellation that, if i remember correctly, the white house was avoiding attaching to obamacare. wonder why.

 

Philippine Daily Inquirer

9:55 pm | Thursday, October 3rd, 2013

...

 

Policy wonk Ezra Klein summed up the situation nicely: "Washington was shut down because Republicans don't want Obamacare. On the other hand, Obamacare was nearly shut down because so many Americans wanted Obamacare."

 

beautiful spin in the light of recent news. bravo.

[Ryuji_tanaka]

he is one of ten in homeland security with high positions. apparently.

 

Who is the other 9?

[sonnyt111]

Who is the other 9?

As far as I know Elbiary is a consultant with the Department of Homeland Security.

[mokong10101]

A financial collapse followed by a global systemic collapse is coming. Probably within the next 12-18 months.

 

Think 500 pesos (or more) = 1 kilo of rice.

 

The age of paper money is about to end. Anyway the average age of paper currencies is about 40-45 years. Money that is based on nothing is a tool for committing mass fraud.

 

The catalyst for this collapse will be when the countries which lend money to the US decides that a new reserve currency is required.

 

A former high-ranking World Bank employee exposed that there are moves for a single global currency that will be electronic in nature is underway.

 

The truth is, the disaster is much nearer than you all think.

[Bugatti Veyron]

Where life imitates art? I thought it was the other way around.

 

A remarkable tribute to Chris Farley's death anniversary by Toronto mayor's Rob Ford during his rambunctious and fulminating tirades towards city council.

 

Although you're a bit early sir, you've still got a month to work on your cartwheels.

 

You can appear as a guest on Saturday Night Live and play - yourself.

Apparently, Filipino politicians aren't the only ones with thick skins. If this guy had any sense of shame and honor, he would resign.

[Bugatti Veyron]

President John Fitzgerald Kennedy was assassinated at precisely 12:30 PM Central Standard Time on November 22, 1963 (a Friday) in Dallas, Texas. That was at 2:30 AM in Manila, November 23. That was exactly 50 years ago to the very minute of this post. It's now exactly 2:30 AM in Manila.

 

 

 

May he rest in peace.

[sonnyt111]

Want to share this link regarding the first Pan Am Clipper flights between the United States and the Philippines. A bit of history linking both nations.

 

http://www.lougopal.com/manila/?p=1463

[wackyracer]

no, you don't need to debate anything with me. i just thought you might relish the chance to explain which among the tea party's arguments vs implementing Obamacare is moronic. thought you might also know, since it is the law like you rightly say, why or how the president changed the law so that certain corporate entities got a waiver? and if corporations got it, why can't individuals get the same waiver? after all, isn't that what republicans want? a one-year waiver until they figured out all the effects the act would have?

 

It is unfortunate that your reply came after the Government Shutdown and the Debt Ceiling Crisis was resolved, albeit, temporarily with the capitulation of the Republican side.

 

You misread me. Nowhere did I touch on the topic of Obamacare, much less, the Tea Party arguments against it so there is no chance I'd be able to call it "moronic." The main focus of my post which you replied to is about the Government Shutdown and how the U.S. budget is being held hostage by an extremist faction of the Republican Party.

 

It seems to me you are itching to discuss the Affordable Health Care Act. Feel free to do so and educate us. I have not read this voluminous law and not really keen on doing so as it is an American Law that does not really impact me as a Filipino. I have avoided posting on this thread because it seems the Tea Party people have gone amok here with their gobbledygook and conspiracy theories. You seem to be a more reasonable poster, maybe you could expound on the salient points of the Healthcare Act. What I have heard so far is that Obamacare is endangering the Freedom of America. Why so? The latest I've heard from the Republicans, the banning of Transfats in food products is also endangering the Freedom of America.

[dungeonbaby]

i also asked, since you called the Tea Party a bunch of morons over, yes, the shutdown, what you thought of the GOP's proposals to keep the fed funded.

 

it's not like the shutdown silently crept up on that whole lot (the congress), and yet only one party gets blamed. incidentally, why was the white house happy to be winning that debate, when the truth was the whole nation was losing. it's not gobbledygook when the administration issues directives to "make [the shutdown] hurt," prompting the government to mistakenly shut down a private park, or keeping visiting veterans away from a war memorial, just to make a point.

 

it seemed to me, listening to both sides in the weeks leading to the shutdown and in the weeks after, that what the GOP wanted was to cut spending, reduce debt, and yes...fight Obamacare. as a small-government kind of gal, i get that.

 

as for the budget proposal riders you spoke of, to "sabotage" Obamacare, recent events show clearly why the "morons" wanted to stop that. now if it were me in congress, i would've let the Affordable Health Care Act through cleanly, let the people see just how much they love losing their coverage or their doctors, and let them vote accordingly in the next election. that's me, i'm reprehensible that way. but some tea party senators, like ted cruz, were voted in specifically because they ran on platforms promising to do something about problematic laws and unfair exemptions to democratic "friends" like what we've touched on here.

 

i also replied to the editorial you quoted from that bastion of objectivity, the Phil Daily Inquirer, on the issue not just of the shutdown but of Obamacare as well, calling insurgent republicans racist. for someone who does not have skin in the game you sure quote some vile things, the racist tag is no light matter. and you sure are relentless in mocking the tea party and other conservatives. anyway, i thought i would reply to such a base, misguided, and unfounded generalization made by the Inquirer, hence bringing the discussion back to Obamacare. i'm not itching to discuss anything, there are more fun threads than this, but some things just bear replying to.

 

the short of it is, Republicans will continue to get blamed for most everything going wrong under this administration. that one-sided, inevitable blame loomed over the GOP for years, and they've finally called the Democrats' bluff, at great, great cost. cue liberal media coverage. cue you and your apparent disdain for the Tea Party.

 

despite this, i'm pretty sure you were being facetious in your oversimplification of the Republican agenda. i'll admit lashing out against a ban on transfats sounds lunatic. but in the context of protecting the citizens' freedom to choose how to live their lives, it's really not such a crazy thing to fight for.

[dungeonbaby]

I think a hole just ripped through my pants from a soupcan-rection. I don't know.

 

why thank you, mtf, that is the best compliment i've ever gotten in these parts! lol. but i think your condition may be due to 1) a long deployment away from sturdy, available females and 2) a strong drive to make librarians blush.

[dungeonbaby]

Or (3), a long deployment away from a sturdy, available librarian who likes to do more than, blush? 🍆 Aubergine Audrey?

 

lol. i don't blush, alliterating airman.

 

full disclosure: mtf owes me please don't mind us.

[wackyracer]

i also asked, since you called the Tea Party a bunch of morons over, yes, the shutdown, what you thought of the GOP's proposals to keep the fed funded.

 

it's not like the shutdown silently crept up on that whole lot (the congress), and yet only one party gets blamed. incidentally, why was the white house happy to be winning that debate, when the truth was the whole nation was losing. it's not gobbledygook when the administration issues directives to "make [the shutdown] hurt," prompting the government to mistakenly shut down a private park, or keeping visiting veterans away from a war memorial, just to make a point.

 

it seemed to me, listening to both sides in the weeks leading to the shutdown and in the weeks after, that what the GOP wanted was to cut spending, reduce debt, and yes...fight Obamacare. as a small-government kind of gal, i get that.

 

as for the budget proposal riders you spoke of, to "sabotage" Obamacare, recent events show clearly why the "morons" wanted to stop that. now if it were me in congress, i would've let the Affordable Health Care Act through cleanly, let the people see just how much they love losing their coverage or their doctors, and let them vote accordingly in the next election. that's me, i'm reprehensible that way. but some tea party senators, like ted cruz, were voted in specifically because they ran on platforms promising to do something about problematic laws and unfair exemptions to democratic "friends" like what we've touched on here.

 

It cannot be over-emphasized that passing the budget is a mandatory job of Congress. In July of 2013, Republican House Speaker John Boehner approached Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and offered to pass a clean Budget Resolution (without any Obamacare riders) if the Democrats agree to a $70 Billion spending cut. The Democrats agreed and the deal was cut. The Republicans eventually reneged on this agreement because according to Boehner, they decided to make a stand against Obamacare. (As pointed out previously, Obamacare has nothing to do with the Budget Act. The Affordable Health Care Act does not depend on the Budget Act for its funding and so can be taken on by the Republicans as a separate issue to deal with.) The short of it, they decided to hold hostage the U.S. government by withholding the funding up until their demands are met on de-funding Obamacare. Upping the ante, they threatened to let the U.S. government default on its debt by not acting on the debt ceiling. Surely, not funding the U.S. Government and pushing it to default on its debt was the quickest way to k*ll off America -- not the implementation of the Affordable Care Act.

 

The Republicans reneged on a deal and decided to take a stand as admitted by Boehner. They should own up to it. This is not Harry Reid's government shutdown, not President Barrack Obama's government shutdown, it is without a doubt a Republican Tea Party government shutdown. The Republicans are fully aware of the consequences of a Government Shutdown that is why senior Republicans were against it up until they caved in to the 80 Tea Party representatives in August (because of personal political considerations with the incoming elections). They shut down the government but expect a few select government programs that they like to continue running. I wouldn't call that smart.

 

The Republican goals to cut spending and reduce the deficit are worthy, and at this time, necessary goals. However, everyone except a minority conservative base believe that shutting down the government and inducing a debt default will help in achieving these goals. The fact that Speaker Boehner trimmed down $70 Billion from the proposed Budget Act proves that it can be done through compromise. The government shutdown was estimated to have cost the economy $16 Billion and 120,000 new private sector jobs and shaved off 0.2-0.6 from the GDP. This does not yet take into account the impact of the government shutdown on consumer and business confidence.

 

The avenues attendant to a working representative democracy was and is available to every American, especially the Tea Party. They can turn to the law-making (or law-repealing as in this case)powers of Congress or the oversight powers of the Supreme Court or the electoral vote (by electing another president such as in 2012)to make their voices heard about their views on the ACA. In fact, they did (although they have been rebuffed quite a number of times but then they are free to try again). It can be done without torching the U.S. economy and the global economy along with it.

 

 

SIDE ISSUES

 

++ What exactly are the GOP proposals put forward to keep the government funded? I've read some and I think I've answered that by saying that discussions on the Affordable Care Act should be separate from the Appropriations Act. If you're talking about the piece-meal funding for select government programs proposed during the Government Shutdown, I believe that giving in to those would just encourage the Republicans to prolong the shutdown. And we all agree that the Government Shutdown is bad for all involved.

 

++ The "government directive" to make the shutdown hurt is sketchy at best. It was being used as a Republican ploy for sympathy in the early part of the government shutdown. True or not, closing up the War Memorial or the Panda cam is an inconvenience I deem minuscule to the real damage being done to all Americans by prolonging the government shutdown. If inconveniencing a few park visitors would bring out an immediate end to the government shutdown, that's not a bad bargain.

 

Here are the Republicans complaining that the government is squeezing them by shutting down memorial parks and yet conveniently forget that they are the ones doing the squeezing by withholding the budget. That if it were not for them, the parks would not have been shut down in the first place.

 

++ The idea that the White House was happy about the government shutdown is not accurate and is a derivative of a Wall Street Journal article quoting a supposed still-unnamed senior WH official thus: "We are winning ... It doesn't really matter to us" how long the shutdown lasts "because what matters is the end result." The quote was promptly disavowed by WH Press Secretary Jay Carney. (I would understand, however, if in private, they are amused at how the Republican Party is self-destructing.) But I know of at least two House Republicans happy about the shutdown:

 

Rep. Michelle Bachmann on Fox News:

"We're really very energized today, we're really very strong. This is about the happiest I've seen members for a long time."

"We're very excited. It's exactly what we wanted and we got it."

 

Rep. Matt Salmon (R-Ariz) on Face the Nation:

Said he thinks the government shutdown was a good idea. "It's about time."

[harmless0810]

Just in, from a concerned citizen, or in the words of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, a terrorist.

 

Hello. I'm Becky Gerritson. I've been asked to explain how Obamacare will affect you all in five minutes. I think I can do it in less than one.

Remember Lord of the Rings?

Well, we are all happy hobbits. Washington, DC is Mordor. Barack Obama is Sauron. Kathleen Sebelius is Saruman. The hideous, despicable army of evil orcs would be the IRS. And the Affordable Care Act is their plan to reorganize the Shire.

That metaphor works for several reasons. I love it because it highlights a certainty that many of us would prefer to ignore: a battle is coming.

As natives of the Shire, we don't like conflict. We like to work hard. We like to take care of our families. We like our churches. We like our communities. When we see a neighbor struggle, we like to band together and bear each other up.

But outside forces think they know better. They've announced their new edict. Very soon, they will commence its enforcement. And now, we are being forced to make a choice: submit or fight.

And what does submission require?

Obamacare may begin with health care, but it's much more than that — more than your individual policy, more than a government takeover of 1/6th of the American economy.

Try not to focus on the politics of the moment. Forget about your personal relationship with your family doctor. Forget about broken promises. Forget about the technical failures of healthcare.gov. The real nightmare arrives when Obamacare starts to function properly.

Complying with Obamacare means that your tax dollars will directly fund abortions as of January 1st, 2014. It means that religious institutions will have to violate their consciences if they want to keep their doors open.

If the government orders you to k*ll a baby would you do it? No? Then why would you agree to pay someone else to do it?

What is religious freedom if the government can force you to violate your religious convictions?

Maybe you're not religious. And maybe you don't care about abortion. Are you comfortable with the government redefining freedom whenever they change their mind about the "greater good?"

That's the most troubling aspect of Obamacare. It's not just an enormous government welfare program that asks younger Americans to pay for the decisions of an older generation. Obamacare presents a competing system of values that cannot co-exist with our local values.

I like to make my own decisions about my life and family. But if I'm forced to deal with a collective, I would rather trust the strangers in this room than federal bureaucrats. And that is exactly what Obamacare forbids: individual decision-making and communities expressing local values. With Obamacare, the moral decision-making occurs in Washington. We just follow their orders. As such, Obamacare is the keystone to a fundamental transformation of our culture.

If you think I'm being dramatic, I urge you to remember the name Ezekial Emanuel. He's the chief architect of Obamacare. He's also the author of the Complete Lives system. That system is his blueprint for how health care dollars should be allocated to benefit the most productive in a society. He says his program will serve the "greatest good." Emanuel believes that too much money is spent on the elderly. He also believes that children born with serious disabilities and illnesses siphon off more than their share of collective dollars that could be better spent elsewhere. In short, the Complete Lives system would focus health care expenditures to aid the most productive in society (roughly those between 18 and 50) at the expense of the elderly and the infirm.

When it comes to sick kids and grandparents, sometimes difficult decisions must be made. I think those decisions should be made by families. Obamacare will leave the decision to a panel of bureaucrats.

I believe that Obamacare will be deeply destructive — both to American health care and to American culture — but Obamacare is just a vessel. It is not nearly as sinister and threatening as the idea behind it: social justice. Over the last five years, you've heard the term "social justice" uttered by President Obama and his czars and czarinas somewhere around 14 billion times. The president can't complete a sneeze without mentioning it.

As a concept, social justice means that we have an obligation to those less fortunate than us. On the surface, there's nothing especially new about that. Christians and Jews believe something similar. We know that the poor will always be with us, and it is always our duty to reach out and be charitable.

I urge you not to fall for this. Christianity calls individuals to be generous to the less fortunate. Christianity is concerned with each individual soul. Though social justice cloaks itself in similar language, it asserts that some debt exists between one citizen and another. This is an enormous difference. Recipients of charity are grateful. Those who believe that they have been denied justice are not.

If social justice exists, where are the courts? If a debt exists between citizens, how much is owed? And who owes it? If these questions can't be answered, then social justice is a fraud, and those who propagate it are promoting violence between citizens.

Obamacare was sold under the banner of social justice. In nearly every speech, President Obama suggests that part of the population has taken more than its fair share. Conversely, he is telling part of the population that they have been robbed. This is a morality fairy tale spun by a man who doesn't understand the free market or respect American traditions.

I know the Shire, and I know Shire folk. We're generous and hospitable to those in need. We're happy to support charitable causes, near and far. But submitting to outsiders is not generosity. It's surrender. And I won't play a part in it.

As I said at the beginning, a battle is coming. If you're interested in joining the resistence, we need your help.