100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Community > Posts By > boredinaz06
|
|
|
Obama'��s pledge that ��no one will take away your health plan. ��That means that no matter how we reform health care, we will keep this promise to the American people: If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'��ll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what. The Pinocchio Test The administration is defending this pledge with a rather slim reed that there is nothing in the law that makes insurance companies force people out of plans they were enrolled in before the law passed. That explanation conveniently ignores the regulations written by the administration to implement the law. Moreover, it also ignores the fact that the purpose of the law was to bolster coverage and mandate a robust set of benefits, whether someone wanted to pay for it or not. The presidents statements were sweeping and unequivocal and made both before and after the bill became law. The White House now cites technicalities to avoid admitting that he went too far in his repeated pledge, which, after all, is one of the most famous statements of his presidency. The presidents promise apparently came with a very large caveat: If you like your health care plan, you'��ll be able to keep your health care plan if we deem it to be adequate.  http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2013/10/30/obamas-pledge-that-no-one-will-take-away-your-health-plan/?hpid=z2 I'm still waiting for the Obama-bots to explain why President Obama's false claim isn't a false claim. Meanwhile, my insurance premium is going up as a result of Obamacare. The people I personally know who have looked into will pay higher premiums. Myself I don't worry about it because I have 0 intention of playing along. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's a FearNet original series. So yeah, either on their site, or DVD is the only way to watch it. You might be able to find full episodes on Youtube. It's good silly, gory, raunchy fun. Lot's of horror movie references, and horror celeb guest appearances. Awesome! I'll have to check it out. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Interesting Song
|
|
I enjoyed the graphics! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
boredinaz06
on
Wed 10/30/13 12:27 AM
|
|
Under the highly illegal General Order Number 38 he ordered the deportation of not only a famous American citizen, but a famous American politician, two-time Representative Clement L. Vallandighan, a highly illegal act which could only have been made worse if he had done what Obama does now; killed the American citizen abroad. He invaded the South in violation of the Constitution, he arrested people who were critical of him, rigged elections in the North and ordered and supported mass killings of United States citizens, all in the name of preserving the Union. But in the end, did he do us any good? The Union was preserved geographically but philosophically it was damaged because as it is stated in the Constitution, in the Declaration of Independence and in the Articles of Confederation, the states are all free and independent.
Lincoln was awesome 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Your quote is an authors opinion, history dictates differently. What an interesting straw-man. From History.com: "In the mid-19th century, while the United States was experiencing an era of tremendous growth, a fundamental economic difference existed between the country's northern and southern regions. While in the North, manufacturing and industry was well established, and agriculture was mostly limited to small-scale farms, the South's economy was based on a system of large-scale farming that depended on the labor of black slaves to grow certain crops, especially cotton and tobacco. Growing abolitionist sentiment in the North after the 1830s and northern opposition to slavery's extension into the new western territories led many southerners to fear that the existence of slavery in america--and thus the backbone of their economy--was in danger." From Britannica.com: "he secession of the Southern states (in chronological order, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina) in 1860â61 and the ensuing outbreak of armed hostilities were the culmination of decades of growing sectional friction over the related issues of slavery, trade and tariffs, and the doctrine of statesâ rights. This friction arose out of fundamental differences between the economies of the Northern and Southern states. The North had a growing manufacturing sector and small farms using free labour, while the Southâs economy was based on large farms (plantations) using slave labour. In the 1840s and â50s the Northern states wanted to prohibit slavery in the western territories that would eventually become new states. The Southern states opposed all efforts to block the expansion of slavery and feared that the Northâs stance would eventually endanger existing slaveholdings in the South itself. By the 1850s, some Northerners had begun calling for the complete abolition of slavery, while several Southern states threatened to secede from the Union as a means to protect their right to keep slaves. When Abraham Lincoln, the candidate of the antislavery Republican Party, was elected president in late 1860, the Southern states carried out their threat and seceded, organizing as the Confederate States of America." From the National Park Service: "Both sides were willing to sustain such punishment and keep fighting because the stakes were so great: nationality and freedom. If the Confederacy lost the war, it would cease to exist. And by 1863 or 1864, when emancipation of slaves and the abolition of slavery became a Northern war aim, the institution of African-American bondage that was a cornerstone of Southern society would also cease to exist. "This country without slave labor would be completely worthless," wrote a Mississippi soldier to his wife. "We can only live & exist by that species of labor: and hence I am willing to fight to the last." ... ... Most of the slave states seceded in 1861 not only because they feared the potential threat to the long-term survival of slavery posed by Lincoln's election, but also because they looked forward to the expansion of a dynamic, independent Confederacy into new territory by the acquisition of Cuba and perhaps more of Mexico and Central America." From the History News Network: "Slavery caused the American Civil War. Of course, it wasn't the only reason war came, and most soldiers, either Union or Confederate, fought for their own personal reasons, but slavery was ultimately behind the fundamental rift between the states. Economically, slavery played a significant role in producing wealth in the Southern states. Unlike the Northern states, the Southern states were largely agricultural. They used millions of slaves for manual labor. For the Northerners, it was a case of slave labor versus free labor. What would happened if âslave powerâ expanded its grip over the entire nation? They certainly didn't want to find out. Examining the various acts that were passed before the war also demonstrates the link between slavery and the Civil War. For example, the Compromise of 1850 consisted of a package of five bills. The most notable was the Fugitive Slave Act. This law required individuals, including judicial officials, to aid in capturing escaped slaves and return them to their owners. The 'escaped slave' could be a freedman, but it could rarely be determined because no court trial was needed. Finally, when President Lincoln was elected, he took steps to abolish the practice of slavery from expanding in the territories. This was the last straw in the Southern states' drive to secession." And the victor writes history, unfortunately in this case the losers were their own countrymen. And for the record, slavery continued on for another 50 years after the end of the war so tell me again how important it was for the north to fight against slavery? I read civil war magazine which consists of articles written by historians. These men and women spend years researching a particular event during the war and submit it to the publisher of the magazine. Most people don't realize what a mixed bag Lincoln was. What he did right was not borrowing from Rothschild to finance his war...What he did wrong was to support the northern carpetbaggers and deny the southern states their RIGHT to secede. The slavery thing as you know was really a side issue to justify the war...Kinda like "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. That's not to say that slavery is OK (it isn't), but it wasn't the real reason for the war IMO. Lincoln was Americas first dictator. In an order to General John Dix on May 18, 1864 he said: You will take possession by military force, of the printing establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce…and prohibit any further publication thereof….you are therefore commanded forthwith to arrest and imprison…the editors, proprietors and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And another thing, Lincoln at the end of the war told Africans "you are free people who may come and go as you please; however, you are not like us and it would be best if you go your way and leave us alone" He went on to suggest that due to their physique they move to central America because it is similar to where they came from. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
boredinaz06
on
Tue 10/29/13 04:40 PM
|
|
Your quote is an authors opinion, history dictates differently. What an interesting straw-man. From History.com: "In the mid-19th century, while the United States was experiencing an era of tremendous growth, a fundamental economic difference existed between the country's northern and southern regions. While in the North, manufacturing and industry was well established, and agriculture was mostly limited to small-scale farms, the South's economy was based on a system of large-scale farming that depended on the labor of black slaves to grow certain crops, especially cotton and tobacco. Growing abolitionist sentiment in the North after the 1830s and northern opposition to slavery's extension into the new western territories led many southerners to fear that the existence of slavery in america--and thus the backbone of their economy--was in danger." From Britannica.com: "he secession of the Southern states (in chronological order, South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, Tennessee, and North Carolina) in 1860–61 and the ensuing outbreak of armed hostilities were the culmination of decades of growing sectional friction over the related issues of slavery, trade and tariffs, and the doctrine of states’ rights. This friction arose out of fundamental differences between the economies of the Northern and Southern states. The North had a growing manufacturing sector and small farms using free labour, while the South’s economy was based on large farms (plantations) using slave labour. In the 1840s and ’50s the Northern states wanted to prohibit slavery in the western territories that would eventually become new states. The Southern states opposed all efforts to block the expansion of slavery and feared that the North’s stance would eventually endanger existing slaveholdings in the South itself. By the 1850s, some Northerners had begun calling for the complete abolition of slavery, while several Southern states threatened to secede from the Union as a means to protect their right to keep slaves. When Abraham Lincoln, the candidate of the antislavery Republican Party, was elected president in late 1860, the Southern states carried out their threat and seceded, organizing as the Confederate States of America." From the National Park Service: "Both sides were willing to sustain such punishment and keep fighting because the stakes were so great: nationality and freedom. If the Confederacy lost the war, it would cease to exist. And by 1863 or 1864, when emancipation of slaves and the abolition of slavery became a Northern war aim, the institution of African-American bondage that was a cornerstone of Southern society would also cease to exist. "This country without slave labor would be completely worthless," wrote a Mississippi soldier to his wife. "We can only live & exist by that species of labor: and hence I am willing to fight to the last." ... ... Most of the slave states seceded in 1861 not only because they feared the potential threat to the long-term survival of slavery posed by Lincoln's election, but also because they looked forward to the expansion of a dynamic, independent Confederacy into new territory by the acquisition of Cuba and perhaps more of Mexico and Central America." From the History News Network: "Slavery caused the American Civil War. Of course, it wasn't the only reason war came, and most soldiers, either Union or Confederate, fought for their own personal reasons, but slavery was ultimately behind the fundamental rift between the states. Economically, slavery played a significant role in producing wealth in the Southern states. Unlike the Northern states, the Southern states were largely agricultural. They used millions of slaves for manual labor. For the Northerners, it was a case of slave labor versus free labor. What would happened if “slave power” expanded its grip over the entire nation? They certainly didn't want to find out. Examining the various acts that were passed before the war also demonstrates the link between slavery and the Civil War. For example, the Compromise of 1850 consisted of a package of five bills. The most notable was the Fugitive Slave Act. This law required individuals, including judicial officials, to aid in capturing escaped slaves and return them to their owners. The 'escaped slave' could be a freedman, but it could rarely be determined because no court trial was needed. Finally, when President Lincoln was elected, he took steps to abolish the practice of slavery from expanding in the territories. This was the last straw in the Southern states' drive to secession." And the victor writes history, unfortunately in this case the losers were their own countrymen. And for the record, slavery continued on for another 50 years after the end of the war so tell me again how important it was for the north to fight against slavery? I read civil war magazine which consists of articles written by historians. These men and women spend years researching a particular event during the war and submit it to the publisher of the magazine. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Ron Paul
|
|
PAULTARDS UNITE!!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Modern-day Islamic terrorists courageously blow themselves up along with innocent bystanders. So, should their relatives be proud of what they do? Your analogy is idiotic. Your comparing religious fundamentalists with people who were tired of the oppressive union that taxed with little to no representation. Uh, want to back up your claim that the southern states had "little to no representation"? Also, you mischaracterize the reason why the Confederacy was formed. From CivilWar.org: "The Civil War started because of uncompromising differences between the free and slave states over the power of the national government to prohibit slavery in the territories that had not yet become states." In short, white southern men cared more about profiting from slavery than they did about the evilness of slavery. Your quote is an authors opinion, history dictates differently. The catalyst for it was started 100 years earlier under G. Washington with something known as the whisky rebellion which was all about taxation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I concur, according to him nobody built anything! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's cut to the chase. The Confederate battle flag is associated with the racism that used to be dominant the USA's southern states. That is why I refuse to have any such flag on my property, let alone in my personal possession. If people who display the Confederate battle flag aren't racists, then they are callous, because they are promoting a "culture" in which black Americans were treated as second-class citizens. . . . . . and, no, the Confederate battle flag isn't a symbol of rednecks, despite the fact that some people have foolishly linked that flag to rednecks. Here is another group that proudly displays the Confederate battle flag:  The harsh reality is . . .  By the way, years ago, when I began hearing Jeff Foxworthy's "redneck" jokes, I didn't understand that they were jokes, because he was describing my family. And that is why I respect that "symbol of racism" as people call it. Because one mans symbol of hatred, is another one's symbol of courage. There are always two sides, and nothing is black and white, but many shades of grey. Modern-day Islamic terrorists courageously blow themselves up along with innocent bystanders. So, should their relatives be proud of what they do? Your analogy is idiotic. Your comparing religious fundamentalists with people who were tired of the oppressive union that taxed with little to no representation. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Ron Paul
|
|
to each their own this is enough for me not to choose Ron Paul ,who survived a 16 year career, supposedly believing his job should be, essentially, doing nothing for anyone.. What do you mean? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The system is ok, voters are the problem. People only vote for members of the top two parties, then they keep reelecting them all the while complaining that we need term limits. We the voters have absolute power over term limits, most don't use it. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like someone is prepping themselves for another presidential bid. Mr. K would be a damn sight better than any Pres you've had since Kennedy. I can think of a lot of worse choices the people could make. I'm a Ron or Rand Paul man. I can believe them when they talk about restoring the constitution. This yayhoo, not so much. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sounds like someone is prepping themselves for another presidential bid. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
She's gotta go
|
|
I'm sure Obozo strong armed her into making that decision. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Former GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz, disclosed today that in order to get federal money, GM had to agree to kill the Pontiac, despite the fact that the G8 was getting rave reviews and selling well, the introduction of a G6 and a new GTO in the pipeline. Pontiac, long known for it's powerful, rear wheel drive cars did not match up well with the radical environmentalism within the Obama administration. The G8 was being compared to the BMW. This revelation shows how Obama uses intimidation and fear to force companies to bend to his will. The elimination of Oldsmobile a few years ago made sense in that the cars made in that division and sales did not justify keeping it, but that was not the case with Pontiac. The Pontiac brand looked like it was about to take off and hit the heights it had in the 60s and 70s. Here is the complete text of Lutz's speech at the Petersen Museum in LA: The Feds basically wanted to get GM down to Cadillac and Chevrolet. They said "you don't need all these brands. You need one prestige brand, and one mass-market brand." And we said "well we can't get rid of Buick because Buick is important in China, and if Buick becomes an orphan in the United States then the Chinese are no longer gonna be interested in it." And the Feds said "Fair enough, but everything else goes." We said well we'd also like to keep GMC. They said "well, GMC is basically just like Chevrolet," and we said "that may be true, there may be a lot of shared components, but GMC has an entirely different image, a different customer base, and people are willing to pay different prices for a GMC, and here's the profitability," and the Feds said "whoops, okay, keep GMC." So now we had Buick, GMC, Cadillac, and Chevrolet, and then, I wanted, badly wanted, to keep Pontiac, because Pontiac was on its way back, and it had been mismanaged for a number of years, you know, with 'rebuild excitement,' and the excitement was only in the plastic body cladding, mechanically there was nothing about pontiac in the 90s that would make your heart beat faster. And with the solstice and solstice coupe, and with the Pontiac G8, which was a great car. We were embarked on a strategy of making pontiac different from the rest of GM in that pontiac wouldn't get any front wheel drive cars, they would all be rear-wheel drive, and the next G6, was going to use the architecture of the cadillac ATS, it was going to be a 3-series sized rear-wheel Pontiac, with basically the cadillac ate de-premiumized, obviously, a lot of the cost taken out, but still fundamentally that architecture. That was going to be the next G6, and I think we could've moved pontiac away from every other American volume brand and really started positioning it as attractive US alternative to some of the, and obviously at much lower prices than the european rear-wheel drive cars, but the Feds said "yeah, let's just, how much money have you made on pontiac in the last 10 years?" and the answer was "nothing." So, it goes. And, when the guy who is handing you the check for 53 billion dollars says I don't want pontiac, drop pontiac or you don't get the money, it doesn't take you very long to make up your mind. But I think it is a shame, Pontiac was on its way back, and it was killed before it, before the plant could really sprout blossoms, you know, it was well on its way. So, I agree with you, I think Pontiac was a great, wonderful history, mismanaged for a number of years in the 80s and 90s and it was clearly on its way back, and we were starting to see a very good customer base in solstices and especially in the G8, which was favorably compared in a lot of road tests to the BMW 5-series, people would say dynamically the car is as good and it's more powerful and way cheaper, but that was too bad. but you can't go through chapter 11 without some really harmful effects. http://www.examiner.com/article/obama-to-gm-kill-the-pontiac-or-no-money |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
boredinaz06
on
Mon 10/28/13 07:38 PM
|
|
Let's cut to the chase. The Confederate battle flag is associated with the racism that used to be dominant the USA's southern states. That is why I refuse to have any such flag on my property, let alone in my personal possession. If people who display the Confederate battle flag aren't racists, then they are callous, because they are promoting a "culture" in which black Americans were treated as second-class citizens. . . . . . and, no, the Confederate battle flag isn't a symbol of rednecks, despite the fact that some people have foolishly linked that flag to rednecks. Here is another group that proudly displays the Confederate battle flag: The harsh reality is . . . By the way, years ago, when I began hearing Jeff Foxworthy's "redneck" jokes, I didn't understand that they were jokes, because he was describing my family. Whatever hippy. I am surprised you know its the battle flag, not the flag of the CSA. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
boredinaz06
on
Mon 10/28/13 07:19 PM
|
|
Confederate flag which isn't really the actual flag used at the time is an abomination to this country and should be a shame on whoever flies it. If people would show them the disdain it deserves people would stop trying to make a statement with it. I personally like to see them fly it so I can categorize/identify the racists correctly and make sure their cause is not allowed in our country. But I do understand how disrespectful it is for others.  Liberals, can't live with em, can't ____ em! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is that on tv or just dvd? |
|
|
|
|
Previous
