The 'No Snooping Allowed' agency fiasco has gotten me to thinking....first off...shouldn't world leaders be only talking on secure scrambled lines?...Just saying...dah...discussing business on a plain old I-Phone or Droid is crazy..don't they already know that Google is watching? This is so much to do about nothing that I think Snowden is nothing but a way for President Obama to keep his transparency promises without having to listen to the Republican noise.
Seriously...'No Snooping Allowed' is being brought to by the same people that thought up and initiated the Obamacae web sight..listening to world leaders talk over scrambled phones would be like how people used to watch the old scrambled 'adult' cable channels..."Look,I see a boob!"
Stat Counter
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Saturday, October 26, 2013
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
Are The Banks Responsible For The Shutdown???
I openly admit that I don't know my dupa from a hole in the ground,but that is why I am puzzled by the T-party shutdown of the federal government.
Yes,I know,the T(terrorism party blames president Obama from not bending on the Affordable Care act(Obamacare),but the fact is President Obama has done nothing to affect the shutdown.The proof to this pudding is in the T-party's own accusation that Mr.Obama has not done any negotiating-none-to stop this made up crisis from happening.
How can a president that has done nothing to stop a congressional resolution to pay the country's bills foot the blame?Can't congress just pass the bill?Afterwards,I suppose,if the president doesn't sign the bill into law,he could take the blame.But before hand?
I know,I know,some of you will be saying that holding the government hostage is the only method left to the right for stopping a bad law that is already in place...but,still...isn't this the hostage takers own doing and not the presidents?Isn't the Republican led house,in fact,willingly stopping the bills from being paid by the very stand they are taking?
That's my take,anyway.
But why?
But why,now???
I mean,I understand that one of the negative side effects of the Republican party's gerrymandering congressional districts is the tenancy to turn on and eat their own.No one wants to lose their job for not being 'Republican' enough.No one wants to lose their seat for appearing to compromise with the other side.
But,when is enough,enough?
How many attempts have the T-party already had at repealing Obamacare?40?44?
Wasn't Ronald Reagan the one that said that no matter how many hostages you take,we don't deal with terrorists?
And it's a long shot anyway.
Not to mention unethical.
Would the T-party stand for the democrats holding up from paying the bills to renegotiate an abortion law already in place?
Rhetorical,I know.
And,just what does the T-party stand to gain?
In terms that all Republicans will understand...where is the profit?
Forget the fact that there are a limited amount of businesses with over 50 employees that aren't already offering their associates some kind of insurance(an incentive to keep already trained good employees),the benefits of Obamacare for people starting up small businesses could be enormous .
And don't we demand such things as car insurance for everyone?
Why not health insurance?
Not that the figures show that many folks are actually signing up for the ACA.Some say it is as little as 1% !
Let's see...already a law that they themselves have already voted for...they've tried to repeal it umpteen times and failed...it might fall on it's arse anyway...
So why is the T-party even willing to put America at such risk?I just don't get it.For what?
I figure because it's a shell game.Which coconut is the ball under?
Who benefits from American defaulting?
[Hint:Not the freakin' T-party.]
The banks.
If America defaults on it's loans,the banks get to charge more interest because of the greater risk on the downgrade of U.S. credit.
This might be retribution for President Obama trying to enforce tougher banking regulation.Or maybe,just because they can.
But,Drew,you maybe asking,how would T-partiers like Ted Cruz benefit?
Well...just follow the money.Who were on Ted Cruz's top five campaign contributor's list?This isn't even counting secret PAC monies.
You do the math.
As I said,I don't know my dupa from a hole in the ground.I have a tendency of seeing conspiracies where there really aren't any.
But...I am playing by the T-party rules of logic.
Don't let this far fetched idea sway you.You be the judge.
Yes,I know,the T(terrorism party blames president Obama from not bending on the Affordable Care act(Obamacare),but the fact is President Obama has done nothing to affect the shutdown.The proof to this pudding is in the T-party's own accusation that Mr.Obama has not done any negotiating-none-to stop this made up crisis from happening.
How can a president that has done nothing to stop a congressional resolution to pay the country's bills foot the blame?Can't congress just pass the bill?Afterwards,I suppose,if the president doesn't sign the bill into law,he could take the blame.But before hand?
I know,I know,some of you will be saying that holding the government hostage is the only method left to the right for stopping a bad law that is already in place...but,still...isn't this the hostage takers own doing and not the presidents?Isn't the Republican led house,in fact,willingly stopping the bills from being paid by the very stand they are taking?
That's my take,anyway.
But why?
But why,now???
I mean,I understand that one of the negative side effects of the Republican party's gerrymandering congressional districts is the tenancy to turn on and eat their own.No one wants to lose their job for not being 'Republican' enough.No one wants to lose their seat for appearing to compromise with the other side.
But,when is enough,enough?
How many attempts have the T-party already had at repealing Obamacare?40?44?
Wasn't Ronald Reagan the one that said that no matter how many hostages you take,we don't deal with terrorists?
And it's a long shot anyway.
Not to mention unethical.
Would the T-party stand for the democrats holding up from paying the bills to renegotiate an abortion law already in place?
Rhetorical,I know.
And,just what does the T-party stand to gain?
In terms that all Republicans will understand...where is the profit?
Forget the fact that there are a limited amount of businesses with over 50 employees that aren't already offering their associates some kind of insurance(an incentive to keep already trained good employees),the benefits of Obamacare for people starting up small businesses could be enormous .
And don't we demand such things as car insurance for everyone?
Why not health insurance?
Not that the figures show that many folks are actually signing up for the ACA.Some say it is as little as 1% !
Let's see...already a law that they themselves have already voted for...they've tried to repeal it umpteen times and failed...it might fall on it's arse anyway...
So why is the T-party even willing to put America at such risk?I just don't get it.For what?
I figure because it's a shell game.Which coconut is the ball under?
Who benefits from American defaulting?
[Hint:Not the freakin' T-party.]
The banks.
If America defaults on it's loans,the banks get to charge more interest because of the greater risk on the downgrade of U.S. credit.
This might be retribution for President Obama trying to enforce tougher banking regulation.Or maybe,just because they can.
But,Drew,you maybe asking,how would T-partiers like Ted Cruz benefit?
Well...just follow the money.Who were on Ted Cruz's top five campaign contributor's list?This isn't even counting secret PAC monies.
You do the math.
As I said,I don't know my dupa from a hole in the ground.I have a tendency of seeing conspiracies where there really aren't any.
But...I am playing by the T-party rules of logic.
Don't let this far fetched idea sway you.You be the judge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)