Stymie, you seem to forget that Liberals believe they have a "right" to be free from being offended, all the while making every effort to offend others. They do not believe in changing the channel or station, they do not believe it is they who should have to leave as they have just as much right to be there as you.

Their "right" to not be offended, which is not granted by any Constitutional Law, Natural Law, Written Law or Implied Law of which I know, trumps all other rights. They should not be offended, and they who offend them should be made to leave or stop practicing what they are doing until THEY, the Liberals, leave in due time. Censorship should exist to prevent that possibility of being offended. Remember Howard Stern? I loath the man and pretty much for all which stands and represents. I have two choices, listen to him or not listen to him. As I believe in his Freedom of Speech right, while I find his speech offensive, is all encompassing, I choose not to listen. It was Liberals succeeding in censorship that forced him off public radio airwaves and into the satellite radio network. What is worse, even when you have to pay a fee to listen to the man, Liberals want him off those airwaves as well.

Liberal logic states if it is offensive, censor it.
A Liberal has no problem with someone in a high school wearing an Obama T-shirt, but suspends a kid for wearing an NRA T-shirt.
Who really cares more about First Amendment Rights?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
For that matter, who cares more for INDIVIDUAL rights? From what I can see, it sure as hell is not a Liberal.

By the way, see the second phrase? "prohibiting the free exercise thereof". That phrase directly references the first phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". When the Catholic Church says they do not want to have to pay for a******ns or birth control, because they go against their religious principles, and ACA forces them to pay for both, does that not violate the Catholic Church's right to "free exercise" of their religion?

He cannot do that, it is a cong*****l genetic defect.

Liberal logic has no relation to "normal" logic. In point of fact, I do believe the two are in contradiction to one another.

And the overall popularity rating for Congress is barely into the teens. What is your point?

In a way, yes. I worked hard all my life and no one ever GAVE to me or cared one whit about me. When I was first diagnosed with my problem, I was working as a fast food worker making $7.65 an hour plus tips. I paid $98 a month for the part-time insurance offered through the company. My hospital stay was $12,000 dollars for three days of care. My insurance company paid out $1200 of that $12000. I was responsible for the balance. No one helped me pay that off, no one cared that my bill was $12000 and was concerned about how I was going to have to pay for it. Again, do not try to push the sympathy card on someone who during a time of need needed sympathy and got it from no one.

So just because it is health care it should be free to all. Who is going to pay the cost? Someone has to pay the cost. I again refer you to the above. I had to make serious sacrifices in my life after my diagnosis to be able to pay that bill. Social Services was not there to help me. I am male and white. Now, because someone else has no insurance, I am expected to pay for their healthcare in the current system. It is caused because of higher prices on that healthcare due to the ones who "CANNOT" pay that the prices are higher. Not because the administrators of the medical systems are just being assholes.

In any industry, you have the producers and the consumers. They co-exist. Without consumers, you have no producers. Without producers, there is nothing to consume.

Your self-righteous will in no way sway me to your cause. I have been through more than you know and yet you think I should sympathize with someone who has it harder than me. Where are those who have it better than me doing their best to sympathize with me. You get out of life what you put into it. I have worked hard for what I have and I am tired of sympathetic losers like yourself who want to help the world take from me what I have earned just because I have more than another.

I was one of those who had no investments. I struggled and lived paycheck to paycheck for years. I finally decided to take a stand, knowing no one was going to help me unless I helped myself. I took advantage of what was available to me to help me out of my situation, and believe you me there was very little of it, and I pulled myself upward. I want to stay here and I sure as hell do not want to be punished because I did so.

If it was not for those investors, there would not be that hospital for people to go to. You cannot have it both ways. The expectation of private monies funding hospitals, unless they are charity hospital, and no return on investment is naive at best and stupidity at its worst. When you take away the possibility of a return on investment, you take away the desire for investment. They go hand in hand. If you want all hospitals to be run as charities, talk to the Kennedy's, Gates', Rockefellers', Vanderbilt's, Carnegie's. They are the ones who can afford it, but my $55K a year salary should be mine to keep unless I want to donate it.

As one of those regular people who pulled himself up the ladder to a higher financial status, I take umbrage at this comment. Once again, you want to punish me for my success. You are not deserving of anything from me or others like me. If you want to be so charitable, be charitable, but do not make demands of others. Not everyone believes as you do and nor is there any requirement to do so.


I disagree, and will continue to do so.

If you are dumb enough to hire the same person to determine the damage to your home and do the repairs, you deserve what you get.

I am happy with my financial lot in life and want to do with those finances what I want to do with them. That includes deciding how I invest my money. It does not include being forced to give it up to someone I have not determined deserving of it because I have more than they.

As have we all. You still seem to think you can save the world. Alright, Superhero, go ahead and try, but do not demand any help from me.

I do not believe I denied that. You are right, there is a problem. Too many people think they can receive treatment and do not have to pay for it. That is what drives up medical costs. Is the hospital supposed to just eat that cost? If that were the case, no one would pay for any medical treatments and the hospital would eventually go bankrupt. How well does that sit with you. When a hospital does not make money, investors drop out, there is no capital with which to operate and the hospital shuts down. How much medical treatment will anyone, rich or poor, receive at that point?

Why? No one has given me what I would view as a valid reason that the Federal Government needs to be involved. Especially since those in the Government are taking great strides to be exempt from the same laws. I believe the Republicans have it right when they oppose the ACA and say they want themselves and their staffers to be exempt.

I love how people like you look only at the short-term and do not even think to look forward and view what this program will eventually do to the insurance industry. Consider the number of healthy people who are not going to want to go onto the exchanges and will be more willing to pay the $95 a year penalty for not having insurance, instead of paying $100 a month in insurance premiums they may not use. Then, when they have a serious injury, they have no insurance. Now they are going to have a large medical bill. More than likely they will default on the payment of that bill and the hospital will have to eat that cost, in your little world. Eventually, that cost will be paid, by insurance companies. Eventually rates will go up on those who are covered to cover the cost of those who are not and do not want to be because it is cheaper for them not to be. Consider, also, the number of people who do not have to file income tax forms because there is no need because they fit into the criteria that precludes their need to do so, not everyone has to file a tax return. Those people, according to current laws, will not even have to pay the penalty if they have no insurance. Or, let us make this worse, assume ACA eventually requires all people of a certain age to file an income tax return even if they would not be required to do so under the normal tax laws. If those people have no taxed income, and therefore no taxes paid and no insurance, they will be liable for the no insurance tax penalty. Now they are in arrears to the IRS and we all know the tactics they use to collect monies due.

Now you want to drive insurance companies out of business. You know who pays after that? The Government. Eventually, that is what is the ultimate goal of this thing.

Call it paranoia if you want, but if it turns out to be true, who is the smarter one?

One other thing, would you be so kind as to do the readers of your posts and the English language a favor? When writing, it is considered good practice to separate different topics in a long post into separate paragraphs. It is irritating to try to read another's writings and try to figure out where one topic begins and another ends.

Unfortunately, we cannot save everyone. And this is coming from a person with a cong*****l, meaning I was born with it, heart defect that eventually will put me on a t***splant list. Do not try to push that sympathetic crap on me. Someone has to die for me to live. And everyone who receives a vital organ t***splant knows someone died so they could live.

It matters not how they died, only how they lived and only to those who knew them. How many people die every day because of the current medical system, who could afford it. Even today we have crappy people in the medical system treating patients. Now think of what is going to happen to the medical standards once ACA is in full swing. As it is speculation, I am calling it that, but that does not change what can and probably will happen.

We have situations in this country where we have children k*****g children every day and I see no one outside of Chicago crying over it. But let a Sandy Hook happen and the world as we know it has to end and it has to be changed "for the better".

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that everything you say bad about the Republicans can be applied to the Democrats as well. You seem only to want to pick on one side with the same old rhetoric. Find something about the Republicans you do not like specifically that CANNOT be applied equally to the Democrats. You generalize all Conservatives as Republicans, but call yourself a Conservative Southern Democrat. How can you be a Conservative and a Democrat under your explanation and ideology of the Republicans?

I have put my hand in the cookie jar of generalization and have consistently been slapped for it. It makes me think hard about what I post and to make sure that the criticism cannot be applied to one side or the other equally.

Let us return to a previous topic, credibility.

Now let us apply the credibility test to today's administration.

There have been accusations put forth accusing the IRS of targeting M*****a and Tea Party groups of extra scrutiny. That accusation has led to the belief that the extra scrutiny cost the Tea Party and/or many Republican candidates campaign contributions which led to reduced v**er turnout which cost the Republicans and the Tea Party in the e******n outcomes.

Now, you have the Federal Government calling for an investigation of the claims. You now have two opposing groups investigating in wh**ever manner they can to prove or disprove the accusations. Who can you trust to give you a straight answer? Each group will evaluate the evidence through their own eyes and biases and try to prove the other wrong. They will submit those reports and those who want to believe the accusations will dismiss the reports that disagree with their premise. The one who do not believe the accusations will believe any report that supports their belief and dismiss as a lie any report that proves or validates the accusation.

Why is this significant to this conversation? Only those with their eyes truly open and can look at both reports can fairly evaluate both the evidence and the conclusions reached by those writing the reports. We, neither your nor I, have all the evidence, nor will we be allowed access to it without jumping through many hoops to obtain it. We have to rely on someone who will objectively report the evidence and give us the opportunity to evaluate it ourselves. But we have to be open to the possibility that we are wrong.

From what I have seen, you dismiss or reject anything that is not within your worldview without truly evaluating the opposite side. You resort to name calling, temper tantrums and bad behavior to make others leave you alone or to try to bully them to your point of view. For a while now, I have made no disparaging remarks to you and you still continue to act like a child with bad behavior and name calling.

Do I think I am better than you? In some ways, from evaluating your writings and behavior in this forum, YES, I do. But in all other things I cannot say. I do not know you well enough, nor will I probably ever be given the chance to do so.

So buy a tablet or a netbook. Stop complaining about the size and evaluate the content. And also, I do not buy it because my DNA phone does not have a problem displaying the "Quote Reply" button with the "Reply" button. Mine even shows the "Edit", "Add New Attachment", and the "Report Issue" buttons as well, for my personal posts.

That remains in debate, but I will not address it.

Citizens have been struggling in this country and others for millennia. Why is there a need to fix that struggle ever? Their are those who will struggle just to say they can take care of themselves. I was listening to someone talk a report done by Bret Baier this morning. One point in the discussion talked about the people of the Appalachia region and how committed they were to self-sufficiency, even in the times of hardship, until the people who ran the Food Stamp authority went in with their propaganda. They convinced these people to get on the dole, and had to work really hard to get them to get on the dole. Now, they are just another group of entitlement seekers. This Administration changed an entire culture and for what? To better their lives. Personally, I think not, but that is the story they will tell.

I h**e to say this, and really do not mean to be disrespectful when I do so, but you really must be blind or unwilling to see what is going on in the government. I am not just talking about the Obama Administration. I am talking about the world of politics in general. The more freedoms we allow them to take from us, the more power they have over us. The fact that they are trying to take those freedoms from us is reason enough to be angry.

You do realize that class envy has been prevalent throughout time, right? It is not just here, but everywhere. When ever you have a group of people, regardless of their like-mindedness, you will have a subset of that group that will be the leadership. It may not happen, but more than likely, in time that leadership will begin to believe themselves above those they lead. They begin to believe they deserve more than others because they are in a leadership position. It is human nature. We are the only species I know of on this planet that will k**l one another for nothing more than a difference of opinion.

As resources will always be limited, until we figure out a way to create atomic particles from nothing, there will be those with and those without.

Employers have found and utilized a loophole in the ACA and have exploited it. Business does this all the time, just like individuals do. Is it the fault of the business that the politicians screwed up and left the loophole for them to exploit? Anyone in business that does not take advantage of it is thought a fool for not exploiting it. There is a difference between what is good for the business and good business ethics. It is unethical to drop employees to part-time status so the companies do not have to provide healthcare coverage, at least as I see it. But you have to admit it is good business practice. Also, it does not necessarily have to be about greed. What if it makes sense to the business because they are always break even or losing money because of providing the service. Why is earning a profit a bad thing to people like you? When someone invests in a business, they are gambling. Gambling is a risk where you can win or lose. If you gamble when you cannot win, why gamble at all. Without investment, you have no business. Without business, you have no jobs. Without business, you have no economy. Without jobs, you have no income. Without income, you get no investing. Vicious cycle, also called "Catch-22".

You do realize that benefits are not mandated, nor are they mandatory, right? Benefits are incentives for employees to apply to and continue their employment with a company. Some companies offer benefits, others do not. People in this country have a right to choose for whom they will work for the most part. People who do not like the benefits, or lack thereof, offered by a company need not apply.

The owners of my company asked me to take a 20% pay cut to help keep the company solvent for a while longer while we searched for clients. We are a very niche service provider and have difficulty finding clients, especially in today's economy. I do not like the fact that I was asked to take the cut, but I accepted that it was necessary to maintain employment. I h**e to say this, while I love what I do for a living, writing code, I h**e where I work. The reason I stay is because of the economy and the steady paycheck. It may not be as much as it was in April of this year, but at least I can still live on it. And there is no guarantee I can find a better working environment to work in AND receive a paycheck close to, equal to, or greater than the one I receive each month.

I just had to make some changes in the way I spend my money and invest. Sometimes sacrifices have to be made.

It is called politics for a reason.

It is more aptly called "The Neverending Story."

Where did I assay the ACA?

Yes, you are right, they did it legally "and lawfully", but they also did it against the wishes of their constituents. Just because it is legal, does not make it right. Major difference.

What are they doing that is not proper procedure? They are doing exactly what has been done in the past, by both sides, to rid America of a policy that American's do not want.

They never had a chance of winning because the Democrat majority Senate wants compromise only if it goes their way. Do not thrust all this on one side and forget about the culpability of the other. Compromise is a two-way street. The Democrats in Congress think it only a street that runs their way.

I would rather have the government shut down, 40% of the Federal workforce on furlough, and something be done to either rid us of ACA or fix it and make it applicable to all before they go back to work.

By the way, you do know that although they will be providing no services to the public while on furlough, and will not be receiving paychecks because the are not doing their job, they will be reimbursed back pay for doing nothing. Are you good with that? I am not and will not blame one side or the other as the one's solely responsible for this shutdown.

Unfortunately, I am unable to answer you because your question makes sense because you did not use the "Quote Reply" button to acknowledge which of my numerous posts to you you are referring.

I will point this out about totems, and being 1/8 Chocktaw, as you claim, you should know quite a bit about totems if you know anything about your heritage. Either you are trying to trick me, which is possible, or you lack the knowledge. In either case, the layout of a totem is such that the lower you are on it, the higher status you have earned. In essence, as the one at the bottom has more strength, of what is not clear, the one on the bottom can carry more on his/her "shoulders" and therefore the one on the bottom is most important.

So, are you trying to get me to say that "Yes you are lower than me" which would imply you have more importance and status than I?

Wh**ever your real motivation, I still do not understand why you need to have me say that you are less or more than I when I have repeatedly stated, while we disagree, we are equal in our ability to disagree and therefore due the same respect. I also do not understand your need for validation from me at all. You want to denigrate those in disagreement. I want to be able to disagree without having the need to call you out for your petty insults.

Book?!?! That last was barely anything.

And I accept that and can move on.

Now we go back to the point of one side versus the other with propaganda and misleading information.

Agree to disagree.

Unfortunately, on this you are correct. But remember, I am against both parties now, so I really could care less.

In all of this, where is the culpability of the Democrat party. Once again, you talk about one side with points that are both valid and applicable to the opposition.

As I find the majority of this post irrelevant, I will only address this last paragraph.

What does it matter the profit of any company, regardless of the products or services it provides? What was the profit margin that garnered that $35B? People like you want to complain when Exxon makes $15B dollars in profit and call it outrageous without realizing their profit margin was only 3%, but say nothing when McDonald's earns $10B in profit and it is ~20% profit margin. A person, or group of people, go into business with the intent to make money. If they do not make money, or at least break even, what is the point of making the attempt to go into business. Many businesses fail, many businesses succeed. Why should there be complaint when they succeed? Why is the amount of money they make and pay taxes on any concern of anyone's except those who make the initial monetary investment?

Are you jealous of those who make a lot of money for their abilities and get paid for it? Why are their payrolls outrageous to you? Do you think everyone should make minimum wage and that is it? Do people not deserve to be paid for their worth to the company? You appear to me, and this is only speculation on my part, to be someone who believes they should be paid what everyone else gets paid with the same job title even if you do not do the same amount of work as the others.

And this is all the fault of the profit makers in the world? What about their own responsibility? Did they buy a house they could not afford? Were they one of the beneficiaries of Bill Clinton's policy to force banks and mortgage lenders to give mortgages to people who could not afford them. That is what caused the housing crises and everyone knows it. Personal responsibility, which you seem to not advocate, had no small part in the facts behind why they are losing their homes?

So none of these people were in major debt before they required treatment? How many of those people you are putting into this category did not have insurance because they did not think they needed it?

But it is a problem not caused completely by politicians and business, large or small. Again, I refer you to personal responsibility.

And again I say, why should someone not be able to invest and not get a return on investment. That is called interest free loans, try to get a bank to do that for you.

Why should non-investor interests be taken into consideration when it comes to investments and return on those investments. You do know that investing is not a form of money-lending, but a form of gambling. Why gamble if there is no chance of getting anything in return? Investment is what drives business. Investment is what drives the economy. Businesses, small and large, medical and non-medical, are games of chance that provide goods or services to consumers who are income earners or the l***hes, good or bad ones, on those income earners.

Let me ask you this: why is it that those who produce or provide a service taxed? Why are they the only ones who pay income taxes? The simple answer is that they earn? Your opinion on how much they earn, outrageous or not, should have not bearing on anything. Some of those earners pay no income tax. Why are the earners being punished for earning? That is exactly what an income tax is. A punishment for trying to provide for yourself and/or your family. Those who do not earn, or are exempted because they do not make "enough" are not taxed. And many have "income". Just not the kind that requires one to work to get the income.

Of course it is, they are the investors. Why should it not be all about them?

Who is the we you are talking about? The company I work for makes money, I get paid I am happy. They pay me what they believe I am worth. I have no dispute with what I am paid, that was true until the economy tanked and I took a 20% pay cut to be able to keep working for them. It is a small business. Because of the economy, our sales people have to go outside the United States to find work for us. We have to rely on countries with recovering economies to keep us afloat. It is the policies of this administration and legislature that is keeping the economy down. When my company makes a profit, I am glad that I had some small part in our company earning that profit. The owners of my company deserve to be paid back, "with interest", for their initial investments as long as they can keep the company running. Why is that a problem for you?

Cry all you want about profit. Cry all you want about high payrolls. When you have the money to start a business, you will want the same thing: a return on investment. Or at least a business that is break even. You will want people to pay as much for your product or service as the market will bear. Deny it!!! Of course, and this again is my speculation, will blame anyone else, probably Republicans, if your business goes under. It cannot be your fault, right?

I do not want to sound elitist, but as I do not speak or read what I assume to be a Spanish derived language, I would ask you to t***slate this. This is a predominantly English written language forum and the expectation is that you communicate in English. Thank you. Or would that be gracias?

Screw a CR!! How about putting up a real budget to which all will be forced to deal. The idea of a Continuing Resolution is just as bad as everything else. When are the American people going to be given a budget, not a CR, to show that our elected representatives are really doing their jobs?