View Full Version : News from Home!!!
http://www.kctv5.com/news/21176602/detail.html
BLUE SPRINGS, Mo. -- Drivers on Interstate 70 can barely see the billboard but once they do the message has been gaining attention.
The billboard is located along I-70 between the Adams Dairy Parkway and the Grain Valley exits. The billboard reads, "How do you like your change now? Obama Nation. They are coming for you! The Taxpayer. First and Second Amendments are in jeopardy. Live free or Die." There is also a hammer and sickle on the sign.
People said they might not agree with the sentiment of the sign, but they felt it was a matter of free speech. Others that KCTV5 talked to said it is offensive and should come down.
A pastor who drives by the sign during his daily commute to his church said he lived in England for years and he agreed with the message.
"We lived in a socialist society and I guess what I am seeing in America is that we are pushing to some of those ways now," he said. "Especially the hospitalization. It's taken away some of our freedoms as Americans."
KCTV5 could not reach the owner of the billboard. The mayor of Blue Springs said his office has gotten calls and e-mails about the sign.
Defender968
10-03-2009, 08:29
Others that KCTV5 talked to said it is offensive and should come down.
I'd like to offer to buy each and every one of those idiots a one way ticket to Iran, I'm sorry this sign offends these intellectually deficient souls, but if they don't like our freedom of speech I'd like very much for them to experience firsthand somewhere they won't be burdened with it.
These people are destroying our country IMO. :mad::mad::mad:
Dallas Morning News, 3 Oct 2009
Socialism, seriously?
To hear some folks tell it, America is headed straight to socialist hell. Want to flee the coming pinko-palooza? Move to Europe, where despite the worst crisis of capitalism since the Great Depression, socialist parties remain flat on their backs.
Conservative German Chancellor Angela Merkel walloped socialists at the polls this week. In Britain, the governing Labour Party held its annual meeting amid widespread predictions of a coming Conservative Party rout. The French socialists? Moribund. And so on.
There's less here than meets the eye. Euro-conservatives are no existential threat to the welfare state. In fact, on health care, Tory leader David Cameron is to the left of Barack Obama. Rightist European parties only promise to do a more competent job managing the welfare state amid changing global conditions.
Red-scared Republicans may have forgotten that the greatest expansion of the federal government into the economy since the New Deal occurred on the watch of George W. Bush. Even before last fall's emergency, conservatives were no enemy of statism. "We may be the party of big government, but they are the party of reallybig government," Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., feebly boasted in 2006.
Pence told an unintentional truth: that both parties are committed to a huge role for the state in American life. We the people have come to expect it.
Fears of creeping collectivism have been part of our political debate for more than 100 years. Conservatives are not wrong to be concerned about the seemingly unstoppable growth of the government. But our mixed economy and sacrosanct entitlements are political facts that not even Ronald Reagan meaningfully reversed. As two historians recently said in The New York Times, the real political question is on whose behalf the government intervenes.
Arguing that would make for a more serious, realistic debate than the one suggested by the scare-word "socialism," which obscures more than it illuminates. We're all more snuggly with statism than we can stand to admit. Just ask the irate tea partier this summer who demanded that the government keep its grubby socialist hands off his dadgum Medicare.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-socialism_03edi.ART.State.Edition1.4c25d08.html
Maybe we need a new party to split the tie.
Team Sergeant
10-03-2009, 10:20
Dallas Morning News, 3 Oct 2009
Socialism, seriously?
To hear some folks tell it, America is headed straight to socialist hell. Want to flee the coming pinko-palooza? Move to Europe, where despite the worst crisis of capitalism since the Great Depression, socialist parties remain flat on their backs.
Conservative German Chancellor Angela Merkel walloped socialists at the polls this week. In Britain, the governing Labour Party held its annual meeting amid widespread predictions of a coming Conservative Party rout. The French socialists? Moribund. And so on.
There's less here than meets the eye. Euro-conservatives are no existential threat to the welfare state. In fact, on health care, Tory leader David Cameron is to the left of Barack Obama. Rightist European parties only promise to do a more competent job managing the welfare state amid changing global conditions.
Red-scared Republicans may have forgotten that the greatest expansion of the federal government into the economy since the New Deal occurred on the watch of George W. Bush. Even before last fall's emergency, conservatives were no enemy of statism. "We may be the party of big government, but they are the party of reallybig government," Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., feebly boasted in 2006.
Pence told an unintentional truth: that both parties are committed to a huge role for the state in American life. We the people have come to expect it.
Fears of creeping collectivism have been part of our political debate for more than 100 years. Conservatives are not wrong to be concerned about the seemingly unstoppable growth of the government. But our mixed economy and sacrosanct entitlements are political facts that not even Ronald Reagan meaningfully reversed. As two historians recently said in The New York Times, the real political question is on whose behalf the government intervenes.
Arguing that would make for a more serious, realistic debate than the one suggested by the scare-word "socialism," which obscures more than it illuminates. We're all more snuggly with statism than we can stand to admit. Just ask the irate tea partier this summer who demanded that the government keep its grubby socialist hands off his dadgum Medicare.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/editorials/stories/DN-socialism_03edi.ART.State.Edition1.4c25d08.html
Socialism, seriously?
Yes, I take it very seriously, seems I'm not alone.
Type in obama & socialism into google, ask for news for just the last week......
Google Results 1 – 10 of about 7,276 for "obama" "socialism".
Obama "Czar" Ron Bloom's Socialist Vision for US Industry
Trevor Loudon, NewZeal.Blogspot.com
President Barack Obama named Ron Bloom the Manufacturing Czar for the United States on September 8, 2009-two days after communist "Green Jobs Czar" Van Jones resigned under pressure.
To understand Ron Bloom's assigned role, it helps to know the environment he comes from.
The Obama administration has emphasized Bloom's investment banking and business background.
But Bloom has spent far longer in the labor and socialist movements than he has on Wall Street. There is even some evidence that Bloom specifically went into banking, in order to better serve organized labor.
Like Obama himself, Bloom has moved in circles close to Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)-an organization far more "socialist" than "democratic".
To illustrate DSA's radicalism I cite their journal Democratic Left, Spring 2007. The article by Detroit DSA chair and National Political Committee member David Green supports the Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA)-or "card check". Read article.
Type in obama & socialism into google, ask for news within a "Week".
Google Results 1 – 10 of about 7,276 for "obama" "socialism"
Who Is Ron Bloom?
WSJ, 16 Feb 2009
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/02/16/who-is-ron-bloom/
Team Sergeant
10-03-2009, 11:18
Who Is Ron Bloom?
WSJ, 16 Feb 2009
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/02/16/who-is-ron-bloom/
You really should keep up with "current" news...... I have little doubt who ron bloom is... and who obama is paying back....
Go and google unions and labor, you'll get socialism....
Out: Commie Truther green jobs czar. In: Union hack “manufacturing” czar
By Michelle Malkin • September 8, 2009 09:16 AM
President Obama’s payoffs to Big Labor continue.
The union bosses got not one, but two, Cabinet appointees: Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and Labor Secretary Hilda Solis.
Former SEIU chief lobbyist and Soros-funded operative Patrick Gaspard is White House Director of Political Affairs.
SEIU Secretary-Treasurer Anna Burger serves on the President’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board.
SEIU thug-in-chief Andy Stern has a seat at the table of every domestic policy initiative.
At the New York Federal Reserve, the AFL-CIO’s New York chief Dennis Hughes is now chairman, replacing Obama Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner.
AFL-CIO official Naomi Walker received a midnight lobbyist waiver so she can communicate with her union buddies in her new role as Assistant Deputy Secretary of Labor.
And to cap off Labor Day weekend, Obama named union heavy Ron Bloom — who cut his teeth at the foot of John Sweeney when he headed up the SEIU — the new “manufacturing czar.”
Bloom will continue to double-dip the government coffers as the Treasury Secretary’s car czar — oh, excuse me, “senior auto adviser.”
Like so many of the Czars of the Obama Underworld, Bloom will serve in a completely superfluous position. Why does America need a “manufacturing” czar? Doesn’t the Department of Labor cover that jurisdiction already?
No, Bloom has no actual, specialized experience in manufacturing.
http://michellemalkin.com/2009/09/08/out-commie-truther-green-jobs-czar-in-union-hack-manufacturing-czar/
Others that KCTV5 talked to said it is offensive and should come down.
Pffft. Too bad, free speech and all.
What I find offensive is what is happening to my country.
Pffft. Too bad, free speech and all.
What I find offensive is what is happening to my country.
We have a neighbor in his 60's or 70's that constantly says things to that effect. He believes if a few people don't like what someone else is doing, it should be made into law to stop them. Such as having too many cars parked in your drive way.
He also said "We (The United States) should have been communist years ago", one fine afternoon.
Thank God we North Americans have bi-partisan statism to keep us from encroaching Euro-socialism.
Richard
Team Sergeant
10-03-2009, 15:19
Thank God we North Americans have bi-partisan statism to keep us from encroaching Euro-socialism.
Richard
The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism (now called Progressivism), but under the name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened." Norman Thomas, 1936 presidential candidate on the Socialist ticket
Funny you should mention statism and bi-partisan . This is very bi-partisan.
Reid Threatens 'Nuclear Option' to Pass Health Care Reform as Panel Starts Work
The Nevada senator threatened to use a budgetary tool called reconciliation -- also known as the "nuclear option" -- which would allow Democrats to pass key parts of health care legislation with a simple majority, as opposed to the 60 votes usually needed to avoid a filibuster.
FOXNews.com
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid threatened on Tuesday to use a procedural maneuver to steamroll opponents of health care reform, even as a Senate panel began delicate negotiations over a package that could have the best chance at passing.
The Nevada Democrat, who has issued similar threats before, spoke as the Senate Finance Committee began debate over Chairman Max Baucus' reform plan. Reid threatened to use a budgetary tool called reconciliation -- also known as the "nuclear option" -- that would allow Democrats to pass key parts of the legislation with a simple majority, as opposed to the 60 votes needed to avoid a Republican filibuster.
"If we can't work this out to do something within the committee structure, then we'll be forced to do the reconciliation," Reid said, adding that he views that as a "last resort."
"It remains to be seen as to whether we will have to do reconciliation. I am confident and hopeful we won't have to do that, but time will only tell," Reid said.
Republican Sen. Richard Burr, N.C., said reconciliation would be a "grave mistake," and that Reid underestimates the public concerns over the bill.
"I don't think it's a threat. I think that's what Harry Reid intends to do," Burr told FOX News.
But the Senate Finance Committee pushed through tense and intensive talks Tuesday to reach common ground on the Baucus plan. Senators have filed 564 amendments, and on Tuesday afternoon Baucus released a slew of changes.
Among them, Baucus agreed to cut in half the penalty attached to a government-mandated requirement to buy health insurance. Under the changes, families could be charged a maximum of $1,900 for failing to meet the requirement -- as opposed to $3,800.
Baucus also agreed to raise the threshold for insurance plans that would be subject to an excise tax. Under the revisions, plans worth $8,750 for individuals and $23,000 for families would be subject to the tax -- the thresholds were previously $8,000 for individual plans and $21,000 for family plans.
And he agreed to increase the value of tax credits low- and middle-income people would receive toward insurance. Officials said Baucus decided to commit an additional $50 billion over a decade toward making insurance more affordable for working class families.
The Finance Committee is the last of five panels to have a say before the full Senate debates legislation.
Baucus' legislation is designed to make coverage more available and affordable, while restraining the growth in the cost of medical care generally. Its 10-year price tag is below $900 billion, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Baucus made numerous concessions to Republicans in his unsuccessful stab at bipartisan compromise, jettisoning calls for the government to sell insurance in competition with private industry, as well as a proposed requirement for large companies to offer insurance to their workers.
In his opening remarks, Baucus sought to preempt Republican criticism.
"Despite what some may say, this is no 'government takeover' of health care," Baucus said. "Our plan does not include a public option. We did not include an employer mandate. And we have paid for every cent."
But Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa, the panel's ranking Republican, said the White House and Democratic leaders short-circuited the bipartisan talks by imposing a mid-September deadline. "I find it utterly and completely appalling," he said.
Grassley criticized many of the plan's key components, from a requirement that all Americans get insurance, to the taxes that would pay for subsidies to make the coverage affordable. He also said the bill falls short in guaranteeing that illegal immigrants won't get government help to buy insurance, as well as in preventing funding for abortion.
The concerns are bipartisan.
A number of committee Democrats had raised concerns about whether subsidies in Baucus' bill are generous enough to make insurance truly affordable for low-income people. There also are worries about the new tax on high-cost insurance plans, which critics fear would hit some middle-class workers, including many union members in risky occupations such as mining and police work.
Those concerns were shared by Sen. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, whose support could become even more critical if legislation makes it to the Senate floor.
The Associated Press contributed to this report
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/09/22/senate-committee-begins-work-health-care-reform/
He also said "We (The United States) should have been communist years ago", one fine afternoon.
Next time he does something like that just offer to pay his ticket to China or some other communist country.
Let's see now...
Government has control of at least some of the means of production - GM, for example.
And the home mortgage market has largely been taken over by the federal government.
LINK (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122079276849707821.html)
Excerpt 1: In its most dramatic market intervention in years, the U.S. government seized two of the nation's largest financial companies, taking direct responsibility for firms that provide funding for around three-quarters of new home mortgages.
Excerpt 2: By taking this action, the government has seized control of the vast bulk of the secondary market for home mortgages and will have a more direct responsibility than ever for solving the housing crisis. The intervention also marks the failure of the public-private experiment that was created to boost home ownership among Americans. Fannie and Freddie were created by Congress to help prop up the housing market, and investors have long believed the government would bail the companies out in a crisis. But the companies have long been owned by private shareholders seeking to maximize profits.
Where is the line? I don't know. But I do think we're not in Kansas anymore.
Where is the line? I don't know. But I do think we're not in Kansas anymore.
Actually Missouri, 30 minutes East of Kansas ;)