Mr. T Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 Listening to a Liar Thomas Sowell Posted September 08, 2009 9:35 AM The most important thing about what anyone says are not the words themselves but the credibility of the person who says them. The words of convicted swindler Bernie Madoff were apparently quite convincing to many people who were regarded as knowledgeable and sophisticated. If you go by words, you can be led into anything. No doubt millions of people will be listening to the words of President Barack Obama Wednesday night when he makes a televised address to a joint session of Congress on his medical care plans. But, if they think that the words he says are what matters, they can be led into something much worse than being swindled out of their money. One plain fact should outweigh all the words of Barack Obama and all the impressive trappings of the setting in which he says them: He tried to rush Congress into passing a massive government takeover of the nation's medical care before the August recess-- for a program that would not take effect until 2013! Whatever President Obama is, he is not stupid. If the urgency to pass the medical care legislation was to deal with a problem immediately, then why postpone the date when the legislation goes into effect for years-- more specifically, until the year after the next Presidential election? If this is such an urgently needed program, why wait for years to put it into effect? And if the public is going to benefit from this, why not let them experience those benefits before the next Presidential election? If it is not urgent that the legislation goes into effect immediately, then why don't we have time to go through the normal process of holding Congressional hearings on the pros and cons, accompanied by public discussions of its innumerable provisions? What sense does it make to "hurry up and wait" on something that is literally a matter of life and death? If we do not believe that the President is stupid, then what do we believe? The only reasonable alternative seems to be that he wanted to get this massive government takeover of medical care passed into law before the public understood what was in it. Moreover, he wanted to get re-elected in 2012 before the public experienced what its actual consequences would be. Unfortunately, this way of doing things is all too typical of the way this administration has acted on a wide range of issues. Consider the "stimulus" legislation. Here the administration was successful in rushing a massive spending bill through Congress in just two days-- after which it sat on the President's desk for three days, while he was away on vacation. But, like the medical care legislation, the "stimulus" legislation takes effect slowly. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that it will be September 2010 before even three-quarters of the money will be spent. Some economists expect that it will not all be spent by the end of 2010. What was the rush to pass it, then? It was not to get that money out into the economy as fast as possible. It was to get that money-- and the power that goes with it-- into the hands of the government. Power is what politics is all about. The worst thing that could happen, from the standpoint of those seeking more government power over the economy, would be for the economy to begin recovering on its own while months were being spent debating the need for a "stimulus" bill. As the President's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, said, you can't let a crisis "go to waste" when "it's an opportunity to do things you could not do before." There are lots of people in the Obama administration who want to do things that have not been done before-- and to do them before the public realizes what is happening. The proliferation of White House "czars" in charge of everything from financial issues to media issues is more of the same circumvention of the public and of the Constitution. Czars don't have to be confirmed by the Senate, the way Cabinet members must be, even though czars may wield more power, so you may never know what these people are like, until it is too late. What Barack Obama says Wednesday night is not nearly as important as what he has been doing-- and how he has been doing it. Visit Website Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 Most of America now see that Obama is an ominous, dishonest person as Pres. His intentions are hardly honorable, with the constant breaking of promises, same old platitudes, and words that are intended to manipulate only, then reversed later. The past two weeks, I had several folks worry that they may ONLY have farmers markets in the next year or two, if Obama isn't stopped. Like, Obama bashing Bush because of the national debt, then going far, far past that, to the point of telling Congress to RAISE the national debt limit. And on and on it goes, and he is being mistrusted by both sides, and has to at least a great degree, lost the trust of most of the middle. Anti-status quo rhetoric is now the left's baggage they must carry, and the load is getting more and more obvious. Hands off Americans. Hands off our CONSTITUTION. Hands off our FREEDOMS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted September 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 That is the reason Obama has the "czars" to do his dirty work. And when they are caught for being so ignorant when it comes to common sense and are pointed out to being nothing more than the long arm of Obama's radical left agenda he just lies and says he had no ideal. That is pure BS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted September 9, 2009 Report Share Posted September 9, 2009 im just completely blown away that washington has not changed.....and the status quo has been maintained. just another reason the 2 party system fails. you can't be an honest politician and win an election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalBrownsFan Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 We definately need a viable third party. The two parties we have are liars and criminals. I don't trust any of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted September 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 I don't think another party is going to be the answer, politicians in Washington kick the Constitution under the rug when they cant get what they want legally. Just Look at these politicians they don’t represent the majority of Americans, This is supposed to be an representative style government and the only people they represent is themselves. Most politicians are to self serving and need to step back and observe what has been going on in these town hall meetings. More than half of the country does not want the Health Care plan disapproval on health care up and Obama and all of his cronies in Washington are going to ignore what the people want and push this thing through any way they can. Obama says he wants bipartisan support, meanwhile he has left all republicans out of all healthcare talks since April. Obama knows they have the majority vote if they decide to vote strictly party line and dose not need any other support across the aisle. He Lies again, why wont he invite republicans? Owned! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 The Dem majority will probably censor Wilson for that. Or, some personal Acorn/SEIU thugs will show up at Wilson's house and threaten to beat up his family and break his knee caps... But Obama is Napoleon in his own eyes, and he will pander to the most left, most radical and destructive ideas to turn our country upside down, into a crisis. From there, he will simply declare martial law and remain president. Hint: Leftists never religquish their power without force, perhaps as a last resort, but we have crazed Sandinistas/Chavezes in our gov. now. Just instinct still, for the most part... but look at history, read up on the leftist, fascist moves by Chavez when he took power. Then consider that Obama was outraged that Seleya in Honduras was ousted before he could manipulate his presidency to become permanent, like Chavez did. Obama was outraged that the Honduras Supreme Court and the Honduras military backed up THEIR CONSTITUTION. Oh, btw, Obama is now going to be chairman of the UN. Think about that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Just Look at these politicians they don’t represent the majority of Americans correct, but you miss the why...... there centrists, libertartians, and a few other smaller groups feel absolutely no representation....and get less, with the 2 party system. you are either represented by crazy save the environment liberals who want a cradle to the grave society, or crazy religious zealots who think the earth is 5000 years old. (yes, im painting with a wide brush) i have no one to vote for, because the monopoly that we allow amongst the politicians limits the number of choices that are allowed. case in point.....Ron Paul. he would have saved the GOP, pulled literally an entire army of moderate conservatives, and could given obama a run with the GOP attack machine behind him. but nooooooooo, he was a non-interventionist....or otherwise an isolationist for those of you 'pubs who dont know the difference. yet the money systems behind the major parties made it next to impossible for him to compete. he broke records for private donations, yet it wasn't even close. so yes, a third and possibly fourth party is needed to end the stalemate. furthermore, all incumbents need to be removed, D and R alike. unless political figures understand that the american people know how to use democracy to get what we want, these hacks in office now will continue to run rampant on our checkbooks until they die. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chicopee John Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 correct, but you miss the why...... there centrists, libertartians, and a few other smaller groups feel absolutely no representation....and get less, with the 2 party system. you are either represented by crazy save the environment liberals who want a cradle to the grave society, or crazy religious zealots who think the earth is 5000 years old. (yes, im painting with a wide brush) i have no one to vote for, because the monopoly that we allow amongst the politicians limits the number of choices that are allowed. case in point.....Ron Paul. he would have saved the GOP, pulled literally an entire army of moderate conservatives, and could given obama a run with the GOP attack machine behind him. but nooooooooo, he was a non-interventionist....or otherwise an isolationist for those of you 'pubs who dont know the difference. yet the money systems behind the major parties made it next to impossible for him to compete. he broke records for private donations, yet it wasn't even close. so yes, a third and possibly fourth party is needed to end the stalemate. furthermore, all incumbents need to be removed, D and R alike. unless political figures understand that the american people know how to use democracy to get what we want, these hacks in office now will continue to run rampant on our checkbooks until they die. Music to my ears, Choco. The two party system stifles (sp?) dissention and a broad array of approaches. Some say that I waste my votes, but I am happy to say that I voted for Nader the past few elections. All I had to decide is that he was the best of the three candidates and it was easy to vote for him - not that I agree with A LOT of what he proposes. At the local level, I am part of a very small group that is challenging the two party system for our podunk town. We have already received a hatched job by one of the parties that aired on local news. Three stooges running for town offices, and the local powerbrokers are worried??????????? Two Party = No Choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted September 10, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Ha! You didnt vote for Nader did you? Only Kidding! I will confess for "W"'s second term I voted for an Independent. Who? Hell I dont dont remember. But I know it wasn't Nader. I was going to do the same this last election, I dont like McCain but after researching boy wonder Obama, and seeing what he was wanting to bring to our country along with all of his friends and associates who are communists I pushed for McCain. Kinda the worst of 2 evils like we always get. But Obama is in and his Radicals are turning this country upside down. And we are becoming more like Russia everyday. The only thing I can really recommend is, keep your powder dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiwaygal Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 I agree with the thoughts about our current two-party system...the dems and repubs have the country on a leash dangling carrots to the highest bidder. It's sad...and pathetic...and the vast majority fight over the stupidest crap!! It seems to me that major elections are getting closer and closer. I think the reason is two-fold. One is that people are generally more informed. With 24/7 newsfeeds available at our fingertips, and the overwhelming amount of data out there, how can we not be? The second is that we are also more confused. We literally ARE choosing the 'lesser of two evils'. We are doing our part (by voting) but the choices we have are disappointing to say the least. I have always voted along party lines because, for me, that IS the lesser of two evils. I don't like the vocal minority of the far right any more than I like the vocal minority of the far left. There are millions and millions of people in the middle and no one to speak for us. Unfortunately, I believe we are stuck with the system...we can't break the cycle. Somehow or another we gave away the power a long time ago and it's too late to get it back now. Or at least, I don't know where it would begin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
choco Posted September 10, 2009 Report Share Posted September 10, 2009 Ha! You didnt vote for Nader did you? Barr.....voted the party line... the more i observe, the more im agreeing with your stance. he's been anything but what was advertised, and the leash is getting shorter and shorter. i said i would give him a year, the same as i did with shrub. but at this point, he has to pass this healthcare bill....without a single provision i disagree with in order for me to start thinking otherwise. the guy is obviously corrupt as hell.....same as every other politician elected the last 40 years.....sans Carter, he was just unintelligent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 I reiterate what I said before, I am closer and closer to believing we need a third party. Too much greedy, corrupt sob's in both parties. I would call it the American Patriot party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted September 11, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 Take one for the Team! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoCalBrownsFan Posted September 11, 2009 Report Share Posted September 11, 2009 I plan on not voting for any incumbent in the upcoming elections. If they are in office now, they won't get my vote. It's time for American's to say enough is enough, and vote these liars out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. T Posted September 13, 2009 Author Report Share Posted September 13, 2009 I plan on not voting for any incumbent in the upcoming elections. If they are in office now, they won't get my vote. It's time for American's to say enough is enough, and vote these liars out. I always try to check out the new challengers when its time to vote, otherwise you end up with change. And thats not the change everyone expected accept the progressive (radicals) democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.