Homesteading Forum banner

1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,092 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
over Obama's claim that it was "unlikely"
that an Ebola case would strike the U.S.

"Obama said it was unlikely.
It has happened. It's here," Matthews said.


From the transcript-
DR. EZEKIEL EMANUEL: Again, don't hypothesize because we just don't know.
We have no idea what he did or didn't do and how he got it. I'm sure that's going
to be vital information to try to understand the transmission, but the idea that there's
going to be a widespread outbreak here, I think is just, again, it's a bit of fear mongering.
We have a single case. This is not a big, widespread --

MATTHEWS: Yeah, yeah, but I'm just going back to the president's statement, doctor,
and that is that the president said it would be unlikely if we had a case in this country.
Unlikely to even have one case. You want to see the tape again?

EMANUEL: He said there wouldn't be an Ebola outbreak.

MATTHEWS: No, and in the second part of his sentence he said in the unlikely case someone brings it here.
In the unlikely case someone brings it here. Well, they've done it. We're living in the world of the unlikely already.
That's all I'm saying. I'm not fear mongering. I'm stating the facts and I wonder if everybody else is.

###

EMANUEL: The reason we can be assured here that this isn't going to be a major outbreak
is we have a CDC that can do very good contact tracing. We have a very good health system
that takes universal precautions on all patients, with the gloves. And you're not regularly in
contact with people's bodily fluids the way it is much more common in Liberia. I think those things
distinguish it. And I don't think we should get into a panic because we were reassured it would never be in the United States.

MATTHEWS: No, the president said it was unlikely two weeks ago.
Well, it's not the unlikely, it has happened. It's here.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...it_was_unlikely_it_has_happened_its_here.html

Apparently, the 'thrill' is gone . . .
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,092 Posts
Discussion Starter #11
Yes, he is. That's how he earned the nickname 'Dr. Death'.

I rank him right along with Goebbels, Himmler, Goring, etc......i.e. a lunatic.
********************
"If you like your doctor, you can keep him."

Makes perfect sense.....he was referring to this man.

Dr. Death; the man with the plan! :umno:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,749 Posts
That's really not fair. According to the forecast yesterday, it was "unlikely" to rain here yesterday, but it did. There is a reason we have two separate words for "unlikely" and "impossible".

Given the track-record of this virus, the politically-motivated porosity of our borders, and the speaker's proven history of willfully lying about any topic he thought might reflect poorly on the perception of his leadership, anyone who took his claims that we wouldn't likely see Ebola in the US as the truth should only be upset at themselves for believing it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,092 Posts
Discussion Starter #13
That's really not fair. According to the forecast yesterday,
it was "unlikely" to rain here yesterday, but it did. There is a reason we have two separate words for "unlikely" and "impossible".

Given the track-record of this virus, the politically-motivated porosity of our borders,
and the speaker's proven history of willfully lying about any topic he thought might reflect
poorly on the perception of his leadership, anyone who took his claims that we wouldn't likely
see Ebola in the US as the truth should only be upset at themselves for believing it.
******************************
I'll give you the above if you'll explain how ANYONE could remotely
consider the 'claim': "If you like your doctor, you can keep him/her".....
as even being in this same category... fact or fiction? A LOT of people actually believed it.

Just noting that you didn't seem to want to comment on that for some reason.
Of course unlike the weather forecaster's predictions, when the ONE speaks....it was taken as the gospel.

Of course, having heard him speaking at the beginning about "Hope and change",
and seeing who he was hanging around with and continues to do so (one can judge
a man on his character, by the characters he hangs around with).....I knew we were
going to be in for a very rough ride. So when that whopper of 'hope & change' came along,
it didn't take an Einstein to know he was blowing more smoke out an orifice not his mouth.

I've made it clear from the beginning, that NO ONE CAN BE THIS INCOMPETENT, ;
this has been a 'planned' series of events which will be leading to a grand finale . . .
we haven't seen 'nothing' yet.




BTW: Do you 'borrow' much sugar from your neighbors . . .
Thanks for returning it. I'm somewhat flattered (I think).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,749 Posts
******************************
I'll give you the above if you'll explain how ANYONE could remotely
consider the 'claim': "If you like your doctor, you can keep him/her".....
as even being in this same category... fact or fiction? A LOT of people actually believed it.
What?!?!
This thread was about Obama's statement that we would be very unlikely to have an ebola outbreak in the US, and, that now that we do, even the left-wing shills are calling him out on it. I didn't say anything about O-Care. Had I wanted to, I could have done so in any of the 347,931 threads actually about that.

My point was that he said it was unlikely, not impossible. This is one of the cases where he actually didn't lie. He used a nebulous term on purpose. When the weatherman gives us a 5% chance of rain, and it pours down, he can still say he didn't say it wouldn't rain.

The fact that we have borders that have been propped open to serve the long-term political designs of the left, means that we have no way of effectively keeping infections out. Couple that with the fact that our president has proven that he will lie about anything anytime he wants to, I think the blame is one anyone that heard him say than an ebola outbreak in the US is unlikely and chose to believe him.

As I followed the news about ebola cropping back up in west Africa, I assumed it was just a matter of time before it started coming here. The fact that our president told us not to worry and that it was unlikely to come here was just static not worth a second consideration.

I'm not fan of this president, but I'm also not the bandwagon-jumping type. If we are having a discussion about how he got it wrong on ebola, I'm not going to add to the dog pile with crap like "but...but...but...he lied about keeping your doctor", or "he lied about Benghazi".

You remind me of the caricature adults on South Park when they get worked up about something.

If you took his reassurances that we didn't have to worry about ebola, or believe anything else he says for that matter, then that is your fault.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,215 Posts
Why do people think the president is some sorta God ? He just isn't very powerful. He doesn't create legislation. . He is just a administrator , a manager, not much else.
When he said you can keep your insurance he ment there wasn't a law against it , He doesn't have the power to keep the insurance companies from changing what they do.

Do you want to give him more powers and make him force the insurance companies to do more things?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,092 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
Why do people think the president is some sorta God ? He just isn't very powerful. He doesn't create legislation. . He is just a administrator , a manager, not much else.
When he said you can keep your insurance he ment there wasn't a law against it , He doesn't have the power to keep the insurance companies from changing what they do.

Do you want to give him more powers and make him force the insurance companies to do more things?
***********************
I present THIS video. [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-MYwUuidLo[/ame]
Of course, to get a real answer, you'd have to ask Jamie Foxx exactly 'why' he framed his opening statement in just such a fashion.
Better yet, you'd need to ask why a large portion of the audience cheered him on, instead of denouncing him for blasphemy.....and boycotting anything else that he said or did. Instead they embraced it fully.

You'd be correct that he doesn't create legislation; he simply announces that he will do an end-run around congress by issuing executive orders.....
which he's done and continues to do so. Exactly what administrative or
managerial skills might you be referring to? I haven't seen any exercised
in the running of this country since before 2008. I've seen plenty of disasters however and always the excuses of "I found out about it, when I
read it in the papers...." Perhaps if he spent as much time planning how to handle ebola, as he does on his next golf excursion or vacation time.....
we'd actually be able to comment on whether he can or can't. Since he
claimed to be a law scholar/professor, my guess is what they say about those who can't is more than likely true. However, nothing that this man
has claimed so far, as any ring of truth in it; nor has much been found to collaborate his many 'achievements'. I don't doubt that you mean well, by
trying to re-interpret what you hoped he meant, but again the reality of what has actually happened keeps getting in the way of the facts. Apparently you seem to have forgotten, that the details were hammered out with those insurance companies in the privacy of his oval office and that there was a "penalty" attached to those who refused to sign on to the program. Then when people started to squawk, that mighty 'legislative' pen came out and the ACT was re-written and re-written and yet again, re-written without the benefit of going back thru the 'normal' channels of the legal system. So don't go telling me that he hasn't the "power" to change things......unless you mean do tell me that he has/is doing so illegally. On that we can agree.....
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tricky Grama

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,215 Posts
Since the SCOTUS has agreed with his use of EOs and the rest is a legislative Either you are setting yourself above the SCOTUS of you plan on bringing suit , right?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,092 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
Since the SCOTUS has agreed with his use of EOs
and the rest is a legislative Either you are setting yourself above the SCOTUS of you plan on bringing suit , right?
****************************
What I am doing, is demanding that each branch of the gooberment,
do their jobs as described and designed within the framework of the
constitution and as so designated by founders who drew it up.
Anything else amounts to dereliction of their sworn duties at
the least and potentially treason at the worst.

Who said anything about having to bring suit? There is no provision
for such within the constitution that I can find. Only you have brought
that into the equation, as my only possible solution . . .

Most 'regressives' don't want to even
consider the ONLY option that it does provide.
And bowing down to tyranny and surrender
is NOT an option that many of us are willing to accept.

We are LEGION.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tricky Grama

·
Banned
Joined
·
17,215 Posts
****************************
What I am doing, is demanding that each branch of the gooberment,
do their jobs as described and designed within the framework of the
constitution and as so designated by founders who drew it up.
Anything else amounts to dereliction of their sworn duties at
the least and potentially treason at the worst.
Yes and they are doing that. If you don't think s you are free to change that in several ways. Complaining is just one of them.

Who said anything about having to bring suit? There is no provision
for such within the constitution that I can find.
Have you ever SEEN the constitution? If you will read it im sure you will come to a understanding of how the SCOTUS works.

Most 'regressives' don't want to even
consider the ONLY option that it does provide.
And bowing down to tyranny and surrender
is NOT an option that many of us are willing to accept.
Once Again Im left wondering if you have read the constitution. it provides lots of remedies.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
8,092 Posts
Discussion Starter #20
responsibility and neglected their duties. It's long past time that we remind them of this with that
proverbial trip to the woodshed if necessary. Spare the rod, and spoil the rotten child type of thing.
Each branch of gooberment needs a 'reminder' of this fact that it's "WE THE PEOPLE" that have the
power and are in charge; not the other way around. All of us seem to have forgotten that important detail.
Voting and complaining hasn't done a dam* bit of good.....time to take it up a notch.

********************
Yes and they are doing that. If you don't think s you are free to change that in several ways. Complaining is just one of them.



Have you ever SEEN the constitution? If you will read it im sure you will come to a understanding of how the SCOTUS works.



Once Again Im left wondering if you have read the constitution. it provides lots of remedies.
*******************
I've not only SEEN the constitution in person, but have subsequently read it
many times over the years......can you say as much? The ONE remedy that
you and others seem to deliberately overlook, is the all that is left us who
truly love what this country means and has meant to many. Short of ALL those
firmly embedded in their cushy federal pensioned jobs and impervious to the normal
voibels of mere mortals, suddenly deciding to up and quit or resign their positions of power......
much, more serious and drastic actions will have to be taken to regain control and set the ship
back on her course. Anything less, will see her tossed upon the rocks of destruction with all hands lost.

Have you read on how the constitution came to be?

Here's a refresher course: History of the Constitution

A written document executed by representatives of the people of the United States as the absolute rule
of action and decision for all branches and officers of the government, and with which all subsequent laws
and ordinances must be in accordance unless it has been changed by a constitutional amendment by the authority that created it.

For over two hundred years, the Constitution of the United States has served as the foundation for U.S. government.
Created in 1787, the U.S. Constitution establishes and defines the basic outlines of a national government that joins
the states in an effective political union. The U.S. Constitution has been and remains one of the most enduring political
agreements in the history of the world. Throughout its existence, it has served as an inspiring example of the potential
of constitutional government, causing many other countries and peoples to emulate its provisions.

According to Article VI of the Constitution, the U.S. Constitution is "the supreme Law of the Land."
All other laws and judicial decisions are subject to its mandates.
The Constitution therefore has higher authority than all other laws in the nation, including statutes
and laws passed by Congress and state legislatures. Unlike those other laws, the Constitution may be changed,
or amended, only in special ways that reflect its character as a demonstration of the people's will.

The original document of the U.S. Constitution is held at the National Archives, in Washington, D.C.

When the United States declared itself a country separate from Great Britain in 1776, it did not have a written constitution.
Instead, the thirteen former colonies each had their own sovereignty and separate bodies of law. How the newly formed
United States would act as one nation remained uncertain and undefined. The Continental Congress, the first national
legislative body of the new nation, attempted to address this state of affairs by drafting the nation's first constitution,
the Articles of Confederation, which were ratified in 1781, the same year that hostilities in the Revolutionary War against
Britain came to an end at Yorktown, Virginia.

The Articles of Confederation proved an ineffective national constitution. That document did not provide for a strong federal,
or central, government and allowed each state its own "sovereignty, freedom and independence" (art. II). It also did not provide
the federal government power to tax or regulate commerce.

The problems of a weak federal government with insufficient funds for operation became apparent as a number of problems
developed in the 1780s: harmful economic warfare between states, inadequate commercial treaties with foreign countries,
and the inability to raise an army to oppose British troops in the Northwest Territory. Particularly disturbing for many critics
of the Confederation was the lack of a federal response to Shays's Rebellion in 1786-87, an armed uprising by debtor farmers
in western Massachusetts directed against courts of law. George Washington responded to this lack of response with words
that expressed his strong desire for a better union of the states:

"I am mortified beyond expression when I view the clouds that have spread over the brightest morn that ever dawned
upon any country. You talk of employing influence to appease the present tumults in Massachusetts. Influence is no government.
Let us have a government by which our lives, liberties and properties will be secured; or let us know the worst at once."


Seeking to address the inadequacies of the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress called for the Constitutional Convention
to create a better basis for union between the states. The convention began in Philadelphia on May 25, 1787, with the original intention
of amending the Articles of Confederation. However, the delegates — including Benjamin Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, James Madison,
and George Washington — soon planned an entirely new constitution.

Fifty-five delegates representing twelve states (all but Rhode Island) discussed different plans for a federal government.
They agreed to create a government consisting of three separate branches — executive, legislative, and judicial —
with checks and balances to keep any one branch from becoming too powerful. However, they disagreed strongly over particulars.

For example, two plans for representation in a national legislature competed for the loyalty of delegates. The so-called Virginia Plan,
presented by Edmund Randolph and designed by James Madison, called for a bicameral, or two-house, legislature. Representation in
the lower house would be proportional to population, and representation in the upper house would be elected by the lower house.
Delegates from small states felt that such a plan would give too much power to large states. They favored the New Jersey Plan,
which called for a unicameral legislature with equal representation to each state. Delegates settled the issue by voting for a compromise plan —
called the Great Compromise, or the Connecticut Compromise — which established a Senate that gave each state two representatives
and a House of Representatives that granted each state a number of representatives proportional to its population.

On September 17, 1787, thirty-nine delegates signed the completed Constitution. In subsequent months, the document
went before each of the states for ratification. The ratification process was accompanied by a spirited debate on the merits
of the Constitution. The Federalists, on one side of the debate, supported ratification. Federalist leaders Alexander Hamilton,
John Jay, and James Madison argued eloquently on behalf of the Constitution in a series of newspaper essays that were published
as The Federalist papers. Those opposed to the Constitution were called the Anti-Federalists.

The ratification process, as contained in Article VII of the Constitution, required that nine of the thirteen states
approve the Constitution in special conventions. Within ten months after the Constitution was completed,
ten states had ratified it. Rhode Island was the last of the thirteen states to ratify the Constitution, on May 29, 1790,
officially making the Constitution the highest law of the land.
=========
Info on the National Archives: http://www.archives.gov/locations/ and http://www.archives.gov/locations/why-visit.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tricky Grama
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top