Pedro Martínez: Exactly. What's next? One can't use just a single word in as a complete sentence (since a subject/verb is needed). Silly!

Justaminute: Who died?

Pedro Martínez: It's all hogwash that using a personal pronoun when referring back to someone is bad manners. It's done all the time in formal writing. And in casual conversations such as are done here, things are supposed to be more relaxed. Funny that the persons objecting to the use of personal pronouns have used those pronouns themselves. I counted over a hundred in a quick survey of posts by Jules. He'll have a hundred excuses for his use of the word "she" but still, he (opps) used the same word to which he is now objecting.

This is just another way the left attemps to avoid dealing with an issue where they are clearly wrong. They (opps) don't like their narrative interrupted and when they (dang it) are caught with their pants down (as you have shown in reference to Tuesday), they always go to chapter three: diverting attention away from the real point of an argument. I can't wait to see what they will twist next.

Pedro Martínez:

Iamon lyme: When government becomes so powerful it can take more money than it needs to administer its duty to the people who support it, to the point where hard working people have difficulty supporting themselves because of that drain, then who exactly are you saying is being greedy for the money they didn't earn?

Tuesday: I noticed over a years worth of your messages are gone. hmmmmmmmm

A conservitive woman gets called a "sl.." in the blogosphere and the feminists say NOTHING. All sorts of vile things are said of Sarah Palin and the feminists again are silent. But Debbid Wasserman Schultz is told to "shut the heck up" and the radical feminists come unglued and are raising hell over it.

A conservative woman can get called any vile name and the left is silent. A liberal woman is looked at funny and the libs are all over themselves objecting and calling for apologies and resignations....pathetic group.

The US does NOT want to turn out like Europe.

Obama is a failure because his ideas and policies are utter failures. They will never work. They won't work under a Republican, Libertarian, or Democrat. However, Take a peek at what pure conservative ideas and policies will do for a State. More States will copy this. Those that don't, will look like California and worse, Illinois.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dmqC3611Ks&feature=player_embedded

rod03801: True. The Minnesota State Bird (after the mosquito) - My home state!

Übergeek 바둑이: Stop it with Bush. Obama owns this economy. He had two years with full house and senate and he did nothing. His stimulus failed. None of his economic policies have succeeded. And yet he keeps driving the economy down down down and libs like you offer excuses, excuses, excuses.

He promised a different Washington but delivered the same old same old. No transparency as promised, no jobs as promised, it's business as usual.

I'm willing to criticize any Republicans when they don't live up to Conservative principles. There's no praise for left wing loons. They are anti Americans and deserve only contempt.

Übergeek 바둑이: you are deluded.

Übergeek 바둑이: hahaha, you are so predictable. And you can't find the honesty to criticize Obama.

Report: Private sector job creation ground to a halt almost instantly after Obamacare passed

A new report out yesterday from The Heritage Foundation shows private sector job creation dropped dramatically almost immediately after President Barack Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) into law.

[Obama has] never really worked a day outside the political or legal area. He doesn't know how to make a payroll, he doesn't understand the problems businesses face. I would try to explain that the plight of the busi nessman is very reactive to Washington. As Washington piles on regulations and mandates, the impact is tremendous. I don't think he's a bad guy. I just think he has no knowledge of this.

Home Depot founder Bernie Marcus did not mince words speaking with Investor's Business Daily:


Having built a small business into a big one, I can tell you that today the impediments that the government imposes are impossible to deal with. Home Depot would never have succeeded if we'd tried to start it today. Every day you see rules and regulations from a group of Washington bureaucrats who know nothing about running a business. And I mean every day. It's become stifling.

If you're a small businessman, the only way to deal with it is to work harder, put in more hours, and let people go. When you consider that something like 70% of the American people work for small businesses, you are talking about a big economic impact.

Übergeek 바둑이: Of course they did. But Bush hasn't been in office for what, three years now.

The post was about Obama. YOu libs always like to Bring up Bush.

President Obama’s Executive Order on Ethics Commitments for Executive Branch Personnel:


Employment Qualification Commitment. I agree that any hiring or other employment decisions I make will be based on the candidate’s qualifications, competence, and experience.

Apparently when you are the boss you aren’t required to follow your own rules.

These top fundraisers are known as “bundlers”. Since campaign finance laws restrict any one individual from donating more than $2400 to a single candidate, these bundlers achieve prominence within a campaign by soliciting for and then – you guessed it – bundling up individual donations received via their extended network of friends, family, business contacts, etc. While exact figures are not available, the top bundlers within the Obama campaign each delivered in excess of $1 million in campaign contributions, and there were nearly 50 bundlers who were responsible for at least $500K in donations.

As the Times notes, it’s somewhat of a Washington tradition for an incoming President to appoint choice ambassadorships to key political donors and allies. While this may be the case, for a President who declared a “new era” of accountability, and who championed ethics reform while in the Senate, a look at the appointments made to date reveals what I think is a surprising level of cronyism on the part of this Administration. And notably, many of these appointments extend outside the relatively ceremonial realm of diplomatic posts.

What sort of positions are they talking about? Just harmless ambassadorships?


Special Counsel to the President
Chairman, FCC
General Counsel, Dept. of Energy
Deputy Asst. Attorney General
Associate Attorney General
Under-Secy. for International Trade
Chairman, Corp. for Nat’l & Community Service
Asst. Attorney General, Civil Div.

Nearly half of the top level of Obama campaign bundlers have been rewarded with some sort of role within the government.

And it gets worse:


Robert Wolf is the Chairman/CEO of investment bank UBS and given his influence on Wall Street may in fact be the largest bundler of them all. Significantly, Wolf’s firm seems to be mired in several tax-related scandals; and they were also a key counter-party recipient of funds from AIG, courtesy of the U.S. tax payer. However, apparently all this was not enough to deter the President from naming Wolf to his Economic Advisory Council.

rod03801: That makes two of us. He's played this debt ceiling problem right down to the wire so that he could create a crisis over it and then turn it on the republicians. He wants MORE money from the American people and he refuses to use economic policies that have worked in the past all the while insisting that we adopt all the failed policies of the past. He's anti American.

rod03801: Levin has a radio show too. I pick it up on the INTERNET. It won't surprise you to know that I like the way he yells at the libs who come on his show (call in) and try to pass a lib talking point. He flat out calls Obama a liar (which he is) and calls out the Repubes (he calls them) if they stray from conservatives principles. He makes O'Reilly look tame!

Levin says too that no matter who runs against Obama, we have to get that individual into the WH because Obama MUST go. He's ruining the country.

In just a short 30 months, he ran up 5 trillion in debt. And he's on his way to bankrupt the country. It's all calculated. Create the crisis, then fundamentally change the country (into a socialist dictatorship). He's already acting like a dictator. He bypasses congress whenever he pleases and intends on raising the debt ceiling with or without them. That would be impeachable but he's willing to risk it.

rod03801: I worry about that too. Do you listen to Mark Levin? He says the same thing.

rod03801: Wasserman Schultz started to worry some of the liberal leaders because of her many stupid statements - many which were simply proven to be fully false. How she can open her mouth and keep a straight face.

She waited until Rep. West had left the floor to direct her comments at him. It's all calculated. Now some women are crying out for an apology. I say no apology is needed. Club her again. She can't stand on her own two feet when it's a face to face confrontation.

As for Contessa Brewer, I took a peek at her FB page and she is getting hammered for her stupid question to Brooks. She condescendingly asks if he has a degree in economics as he disagreed with her claim that Obama kept the economy from going into a depression. Brewer just has a journalism degree and yet she attempted to lecture Brooks on economics. When he told her that not only did he have an economics degree, but one with highest honors, she stumbled. Out classed and out gunned.

She posted something about it on her FB page to try to save face even before the egg was dry. But it backfired. The majority of the posts are all negative against her. I've read them all and my gut hurts from laughing.

But she is hot, I'll give her that.

I posted these "small" posts because some don't read long posts, or can't, or get lost with all the words.

She'll slip up again. She can't help herself.

she claimed, “If it were up to the candidates for president on the Republican side, we would be driving foreign cars,” the RNC pointed out that Wasserman Schultz herself drives a Japanese Infiniti.

She has given Republicans material to use through the 2012 election cycle. Discussing the economy, Wasserman Schultz told Mike Allen — and those assembled and tweeting — at a recent POLITICO Playbook breakfast, “We are clearly responsible. I am going to take ownership right now. … Yeah we own — we own the economy.”

This led National Review’s Jim Geraghty to write that Wasserman Schultz “almost makes the [Republican National Committee’s] job too easy.”


*ya think?

Wasserman Schultz said last month that Democrats “added 12 years of solvency to Medicare,” later dialing it back to eight years. She had no evidence of support and was corrected, on-air, by CBS’s Harry Smith.

Meanwhile, an expert cited by the DNC to support the chairwoman’s claims labeled her comments “high-octane idiocy.”

On Medicare, her rhetoric has been extreme. Claiming Republicans would “throw you to the wolves” earned the congresswoman a trifecta of media rebukes: The Washington Post, calling the claim “bogus,” gave her three “Pinocchios.” FactCheck.Org said, “DNC Chair Throws Truth to ‘Wolves,’” while PolitiFact just said, “We rate her statement false.”

Wasserman Schultz has insisted, “We continue to be on the right track” and that Obama “helped the economy do a 180” — despite polling and economic data screaming otherwise.

Deborah Wasserman-Schultz is a bomb thrower who suffers from a bad case of hoof in mouth disease, as well as enjoying the dubious distinction of having some of her most vitriolic attacks blow up in her face.

To wit: She attacked GOP presidential candidates for favoring foreign car companies but owns a Japanese car herself. She accused the GOP of advancing Medicare reform that would kill seniors.

Now she says that Republicans want to make a "crime" of illegal immigration. Did someone mention to her that it already is?


There's so much more to laugh at. This woman is soooo stupid.

July 19, 2011

Rep. Allen West Confronts Lying “Vile & Despicable” Leftist Wasserman Schultz

Rep West did himself proud:

From: Z112 West, Allen
Sent: Tuesday, July 19, 2011 04:48 PM
To: Wasserman Schultz, Debbie
Cc: McCarthy, Kevin; Blyth, Jonathan; Pelosi, Nancy; Cantor, Eric
Subject: Unprofessional and Inappropriate Sophomoric Behavior from Wasserman-Schultz

Look, Debbie, I understand that after I departed the House floor you directed your floor speech comments directly towards me. Let me make myself perfectly clear, you want a personal fight, I am happy to oblige. You are the most vile, unprofessional ,and despicable member of the US House of Representatives. If you have something to say to me, stop being a coward and say it to my face, otherwise, shut the heck up. Focus on your own congressional district!

I am bringing your actions today to our Majority Leader and Majority Whip and from this time forward, understand that I shall defend myself forthright against your heinous characterless behavior……which dates back to the disgusting protest you ordered at my campaign hqs, October 2010 in Deerfield Beach.

You have proven repeatedly that you are not a Lady, therefore, shall not be afforded due respect from me!

Steadfast and Loyal

Congressman Allen B West (R-FL)
Good on him!

Wasserman Schultz is out classes and out gunned! I love a good fight!

Artful Dodger: It's total political correctness gone mad.

October 02, 2010
No laughing matter, UK's Equality Act to be implemented immediately
Phil Boehmke
This may not be a joke, but somewhere deep in the bowls of hell, Hitler, Mao and Stalin are sharing a good laugh in Satan's Grand Ballroom as they toast Labour's Equality Act (written in an adjoining conference room) with vintage fire water.

The UK Daily Mail reports that.

Ministers yesterday announced that the vast bulk of Labour's controversial Equality Act would be implemented immediately, despite concerns about its impact on business and office life.

The legislation, championed by Labour's deputy leader Harriet Harman, introduces a bewildering range of rights which allow staff to sue for almost any perceived offence they receive in the office.

It creates the controversial legal concept of ‘third party harassment,' under which workers will be able to sue over jokes and banter they find offensive-even if the comments are aimed at someone else and they weren't there at the time the comments were made.


This leftist attack on freedom and individuality creates a legal framework whereby anyone can sue their employer for anything which they perceive to be offensive. To make matters worse, there is no safeguard for the accused in the form of a warning system. The ‘victim' is not required to tell the person involved that their comments are offensive and there is no provision for a written warning either, instead this is a one and done measure. What this means is that an employee can overhear a joke which was not directed at them, perceive it to be offensive and then sue without any attempt at corrective action.

This is sure to create a morale strangling, job killing business environment where dissatisfied employees can exact their revenge on their co-workers and their employer for perceived wrongs. Now consider that the ‘Equality Act' will also apply to vendors and customers. How could any business operate under these Hitleresque new laws?

Let's say a customer goes into an automobile dealership to look for a new car, they find a model that is almost exactly what they are looking for except for the color so they tell the sales person they just don't like black, can they get the same car in white. An employee overhears the conversation, takes offense because they perceive this to be a racial slur and the law suit merry go round begins. An extreme example? But is it possible?

Other provisions include.

Under the legislation, employers will be barred from asking about the health of job applicants, leading to fears they could be landed with staff with appalling sickness records.

Workers can cite ‘discrimination by association' if they feel they have lost out because of an employer's prejudice against a relative, such as a gay brother.


Employment tribunals have also been given powers in the workplace, such as requiring managers to undergo diversity or equality training.

Companies will no longer be allowed to maintain policies which prohibit employees from discussing compensation, which the law's proponents claim will end ‘pay discrimination.' This of course will kill productivity as there will be no incentive for any worker to exceed the minimum requirements of their position. For example: If Sarah and Barry each have the same job title and have been working for their company for the same number of years, but Sarah does three times more work with only a fraction of the mistakes, she should be entitled to earn much more than Barry. If Barry has an issue with Sarah's compensation because he perceives it to be unfair, he can sue. Soon everybody will get fair pay and productivity will level off at the lowest acceptable level, everybody loses.

Why would anyone in their right mind invest their hard work and resources to build a business and create jobs with such insane anti-business laws on the books? The British Chambers of Commerce (BCC) said that the new laws are just a part of a series of employment law reforms which will lay £ 11.3 billion in additional costs on the already overburdened business community. The BCC added.

Abigail Morris, policy advisor at the British Chambers of Commerce, said the Government's own impact assessment showed it would cost business £ 190 million just to get to grips with the new laws.

She said the full cost could be greater is employers face a fresh wave of trivial discrimination and harassment claims.

She added: ‘Businesses are really concerned about this. Even the Government admits it imposes an absolutely huge cost on business.'


Think it can't happen here? One month from today on November 2nd vote like our entire way of life hangs in the balance, because it really does.

Bernice: The basic strategy of Obama isn't one of restoring our economy but of ruining it. Once it's ruined, the government will grow even bigger, taxes will go up even higher, and government will control everything. They are trying to build power to control our lives. Fortunately, most Americans see through it. Obama is a liar and perhaps even an evil man.

Sarah:

If the government doesn't make the changes McDonald's is asking for, they WILL drop this coverage. Period. And they WON'T be alone! Thanks to Obama Care. And I believe it's all a set up by Obama to control all aspects or our lives.

September 30, 2010 03:03 PM UTC by John Stossel
Latest Unintended Consequence of Obamacare: McDonalds May Drop Health Plans for Workers

Today’s Wall Street Journal reports that McDonalds “warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.”

Why? Because the central planners of the Obama administration decided in their infinite wisdom that all insurers should spend at least 80-85% of their revenues on patient care, rather than administrative costs. That’s called a “medical loss ratio” in industry speak. But there’s no evidence that spending 80% of revenue on patient care is good for customers. As health economist James C. Robinson explained years ago, “medical loss ratios” are just an accounting tool, and were "never intended to measure quality or efficiency."

McDonalds’ employees tend to be young, and don’t stay with the company long. It’s often their first job and they quickly move on to another one. That means unavoidably high administrative costs to process new workers.

So, it’s not surprising that McDonalds may have to drop their health care plans for workers. From the WSJ:

… McDonald's, in a memo to federal officials, said "it would be economically prohibitive for our carrier to continue offering" [its basic plan] unless it got an exemption

… Insurers say dozens of other employers could find themselves in the same situation as McDonald's. Aetna Inc. ... provides [similar] plans to Home Depot Inc., Disney Worldwide Services, CVS Caremark Corp., Staples Inc. and Blockbuster Inc., among others, according to an Aetna client list obtained by the Journal. Aetna also covers AmeriCorps teaching-program sponsors, who are required by law to make health coverage available.

This is just the latest example of the unintended consequences of Obamacare – or as Reason’s Peter Suderman puts it, the latest entry from the “No One Could Have Predicted! File.” This month, the rule banning insurance companies from turning down children with pre-existing conditions resulted in … insurance companies dropping those policies altogether. And as new mandates for minimum coverage come into effect, insurance companies have … announced big rate hikes to pay for it. (The Administration responded by threatening insurers, declaring they have “zero tolerance for this type of misinformation and unjustified rate increases.”)

Remind me: Why is it a good idea to give the federal government more control of the health insurance market?


Read more: http://stossel.blogs.foxbusiness.com/2010/09/30/latest-unintended-consequence-of-obamacare-mcdonalds-may-drop-health-plans-for-workers/#ixzz114b0LnDh

Internal documents recently reviewed by Fortune, originally requested by Congress, show what the bill's critics predicted, and what its champions dreaded: many large companies are examining a course that was heretofore unthinkable, dumping the health care coverage they provide to their workers in exchange for paying penalty fees to the government.

That would dismantle the employer-based system that has reigned since World War II. It would also seem to contradict President Obama's statements that Americans who like their current plans could keep them. And as we'll see, it would hugely magnify the projected costs for the bill, which controls deficits only by assuming that America's employers would remain the backbone of the nation's health care system.

Hence, health-care reform risks becoming a victim of unintended consequences. Amazingly, the corporate documents that prove this point became public because of a different set of unintended consequences: they told a story far different than the one the politicians who demanded them expected.

In a stunning revelation Wednesday, several top U.S. corporations are seriously considering dropping employee health insurance coverage in light of what they see as the inevitable consequence of ObamaCare--skyrocketing costs.

(PRNewsFoto/Verizon).

The companies state that after their legal experts poured over the thousands of pages in the new law, it will cost them less to pay the fines for not providing healthcare coverage for employees than continuing to provide employer-paid health insurance benefits.

As a side-note to the announcement, the companies maintain that ObamaCare will result in a dramatic increase in expenses for providing employee coverage, with added costs skyrocketing to multi-billions of dollars.

According to Business Record:

Additionally, the penalties to businesses for not offering coverage are less expensive than the cost of providing insurance, she said. "But for those that aren't providing coverage now, this is a huge burden to them. And for employers that have a lot of employees working 30 hours (the threshold to be considered full- ime), you may have a lot of businesses cutting them back to 29 hours."

Business Record maintains that despite this fact most companies will probably try to continue to provide coverage.

But a report issued today in Fortune Magazine and reported by CNN indicates that the dire warnings of ObamaCare critics concerning the consequences of approving the costly legislation are in fact well-founded.

The report points to internal documents from AT&T, Verizon, John Deere, and several other large corporations which show that executives are, in fact, looking at the option of dropping healthcare coverage for employees due to what they are sure will be unsustainable increases in costs. These costs will be so prohibitive that it would benefit the corporations to pay the government fines instead:

McDonald's may drop health insurance for 30,000 workers
from American Thinker Blog
Obamacare - working as planned.

September 30, 2010
McDonald's may drop health insurance for 30,000 workers
Clarice Feldman
The Administration cared little when voters and employers warned of the problems in Obamacare. Now that it's passed every day brings more evidence that it should have listened to those warnings.

The Wall Street Journal reports that McDonald's may have to stop paying health insurance for its 30,000 employees as a result of an onerous provision of the law which by design or not will drive private insurers from the market unless repealed:

McDonald's Corp. has warned federal regulators that it could drop its health insurance plan for nearly 30,000 hourly restaurant workers unless regulators waive a new requirement of the U.S. health overhaul.

The move is one of the clearest indications that new rules may disrupt workers' health plans as the law ripples through the real world.

According to a recent poll, likely voters get their political news
primarily from cable television. Among cable channels, 42 percent, a
plurality, watch Fox News for its political coverage. Only 12 percent
said they watched MSNBC. What's more, most likely voters don't like or
have never heard of MSNBC's prime time talent.

“I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”
Thomas Jefferson