The far-left Obama-holic’s continue to blame the Republicans for all the anger Americans currently feel. With that being said, we all know that the hate is coming from the intolerant rants from the left-wing moonbats at MSNBC.
The rhetoric coming from the left-wing media outlets are not fooling anybody. The left-wing smear campaign is more transparent than the Obama regime!
It’s all too obvious who is spreading the hatred in this country! Don’t be fooled by the Obama-holic smear campaign!
Narcissism is categorized as a personality disorder by the mental health profession. It is referred to as NPD or Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Few are ever diagnosed because few go to therapy. Narcissism is not high self-esteem, but a condition where the typical narcissist suffers from
Preoccupation with hiding real or perceived flaws
Overestimation of importance, achievements, talents and skills
Maladaptive attention seeking behavior
Inability to empathize with others
Excessive anger and shame in response to criticism often resulting in rage
The narcissist will often manipulate others, especially partners, to control them. Projection and blame are hallmarks of this manipulation. It is estimated that 85% of narcissists are males.
TIP:Don’t enrage the narcissist in your life. He or she will make you pay. Stay calm and plan your exit. Don’t give in to ‘letting it all out’. Narcissists don’t forget and they like revenge (ATTACKING FOX NEWS). Your ‘outing’ of him or her adds to his narcissistic injury. A narcissist needs to look good in front of others and you gain nothing by proving he is not the best, smartest, wealthiest, most capable person he wants to be seen as.
HOW TO LEAVE
If narcissistic personality disorder or other emotional abusers are ruining your life, take action. The narcissist does not get better, but you can. Many people are both afraid to leave and afraid to stay thinking they are alone and nothing can be done (liberal media).
If you ever felt your voice was drowned out and no one is listening to you and that your story is important and needs to be told, I strongly recommend doing something about it. VOTE THESE COMMUNIST OUT OF OFFICE IN 2010!!
Republicans have fought for civil liberties for almost 150 years. Abraham Lincoln won the Republican Party nomination in 1860 and was elected president later that year. He introduced measures that resulted in the abolition of slavery, issuing his Emancipation Proclamation in 1863 and promoting the passage of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which passed Congress before Lincoln’s death and was ratified by the states later in 1865. The Civil Rights Act of 1866 grants citizenship, but not the right to vote, to all native-born Americans. The Republican Party is responsible for the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution of the United States of America. Thirteenth Amendment, which abolishes slavery and the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees equal protection under the law, the Fifteenth Amendment is one of the major tools which enabled African Americans to more fully participate in democracy. The Fifteenth Amendment states: “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. The Democrats fought to prevent the passage of every civil rights law beginning with the civil rights laws of the 1860’s, and continuing with the civil rights laws of the 1950’s and 1960’s. It should come as no surprise that Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a Republican. In that era, almost all black Americans were Republicans. Why? From its founding in 1854 as the anti-slavery party until today, the Republican Party has championed freedom and civil rights for blacks. It was Republican President Eisenhower who pushed to pass the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and sent troops to Arkansas to desegregate schools. President Eisenhower also appointed Chief Justice Earl Warren to the U.S. Supreme Court which resulted in the 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education decision ending school segregation. …it was President Eisenhower who actually took action to effectively end segregation in the military. Democrat President John F. Kennedy is lauded as a proponent of civil rights. However, Kennedy voted against the 1957 Civil rights Act while he was a senator, as did Democrat Senator Al Gore, Sr. And after he became president, John F. Kennedy was opposed to the 1963 March on Washington by Dr. King that was organized by A. Phillip Randolph who was a black Republican. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was introduced and approved by a staggering majority of Republicans in the Senate. The Act was opposed by most southern Democrat “Dixicrat” senators, several of whom were proud segregationists-one of them being Al Gore Sr. Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson relied on Illinois Senator Everett Dirkson, the Republican leader from Illinois, to get the Act passed. August 6, 1965 Voting Rights Act of 1965, abolishing literacy tests and other measures devised by Democrats to prevent African-Americans from voting, signed into law; higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats vote in favor. June 29, 1982 President Ronald Reagan signs 25-year extension of 1965 Voting Rights Act. November 21, 1991 President George H. W. Bush signs Civil Rights Act of 1991 to strengthen federal civil rights legislation. There you have it. What a different country this would be, had not Republicans blocked the agenda of Democrats every step of the way.
In July, the government posted a $180.68 billion monthly budget deficit, a record for July, marking only the third time in the past 30 years that the government ran a deficit for 11 months in a row.
Buffett said a revived economy will not be able to generate enough revenues to bridge the gap between outlays and receipts, so changes in taxes and spending will be required.
Politicians will not likely have the will to raise taxes or slow spending, so they may opt to quietly let inflation increase, a move that will “confiscate” wealth and allow the United States to evolve into a “banana republic economy”, he said.
We can not allow this failed administration to take control of our health care! In a revolutionary call to arms of sorts, a constitutional activist urges all American employees, retirees and self-employed individuals to stop paying federal income taxes and to help spread the word: “no answers, no taxes.” Maybe we should say: “no taxes, no Obamacare!”
Where Civic Republicanism and Deliberative Democracy meet is there a relationship between defects in our medical ethics and the reason the United States has repeatedly failed to enact universal health coverage? I will begin to suggest an answer to this question by clarifying the locus of allocating decisions. The allocation of health care resources can occur on three levels. The social or, in the economist’s language, the macro level entails the proportion of the gross national product (GNP) allocated to health care. The patient, or micro, level entails determining which individual patients will receive specific medical services; that is, whether Mrs. White should receive this available liver for transplantation. Finally, there is an intermediate level called the service or medical level that entails determining what health care services will be guaranteed to each citizen. These socially guaranteed services have been called “basic” or “essential” medical services or what the President’s Commission designated as “adequate health care.” Clearly, these three levels are connected. A larger proportion of the GNP going to health care permits coverage of more services. Similarly, as demonstrated by the end-stage renal disease program, providing specific services to a wider range of patients causes upward pressure on the proportion of the GNP going to health care and/or reduces the range of services covered as part of basic medical services. Despite these connections, these three levels are conceptually distinct. The fundamental challenge to theories of distributive justice for health care is to develop a principled mechanism for defining what fragment of the vast universe of technically available, effective medical care services is basic and will be guaranteed socially and what services are discretionary and will not be guaranteed socially. Such an approach accepts a two-tiered health system some citizens will receive only basic services while others will receive both basic and some discretionary health services. Within the discretionary tier, some citizens will receive few discretionary services, other richer citizens will receive almost all available services, creating a multiple-tiered system. Underlying the repeated failure of attempts to provide universal health care coverage in the United States is the failure to develop a principled mechanism for characterizing basic health services. Americans fear that if society guarantees certain services as “basic,” the range of services guaranteed will expand to include all or almost all available services (except for cosmetic surgery and therapies not yet proven effective or proven ineffective). So rather than risk the bankruptcy of having nearly every medical service socially guaranteed to all citizens, Americans have been willing to tolerate a system in which the well insured receive a wide range of medical services with some apparently basic services uncovered; Medicare beneficiaries receive fewer services with some discretionary services covered and some services that intuitively seem basic uncovered; Medicaid beneficiaries and uninsured persons receive far fewer services. On this view, the reason the United States has failed to enact universal health coverage is not primarily political or economic; the real reason is ethical it is a failure to provide a philosophically defensible and practical mechanism to distinguish basic from discretionary health care services. What is the reason for this failure of medical ethics? There are two opposing explanations. One explanation points to the inherent limits of ethics. Some philosophers, such as Amy Gutmann and Norman Daniels, argue that we lack sufficiently detailed ethical intuitions and principles to establish priorities among the vast array of health care services. Every time we try to define basic services our intuitions “run out.” As Gutmann once wrote: I suspect that no philosophical argument can provide us with a cogent principle by which we can draw a line within the enormous group of goods that can improve health or extend life prospects of individuals . . . The remaining question of establishing a precise level of priorities among health care and other goods is appropriately left to democratic decision making.
Taken at face value, this moral skepticism is extremely dangerous; it suggests that there can be no principled mechanism to define basic health care services and, therefore, that the efforts to ensure universal access will always founder on the fear that guaranteeing any health care to all citizens means guaranteeing all available services. It suggests we should just give up on a just allocation of health care resources because we can never succeed. The second explanation holds that the problem with defining basic health services is not a general lapse of ethics, but a specific lapse of liberal political philosophy that informs our political discourse, including the allocation of health care resources. The problem is that priorities among health care services can be established only by invoking a conception of the good, but this is not possible within the frame work of liberal political philosophy. Liberalism divides moral issues into three spheres: the political, social, and domestic. It then holds that within the political sphere, laws and policies cannot be justified by appeals to the good. To justify laws by appealing to the good would violate the principle of neutrality and be coercive, imposing one conception of the good on citizens who do not necessarily affirm that conception of the good. But without appealing to a conception of the good, it is argued, we can never establish priorities among health care services and define basic medical services. This is Dan Callahan’s view with which I agree: . .. there can be no full discussion of equality in health care without an equally full discussion of the substantive goods and goals that medicine and health care should pursue … Unless there can be a discussion of the goals of medicine in the future as rich as that of justice and health has been, the latter problem will simply not admit of any meaningful solution. Fortunately, many, including many liberals, have come to view as mistaken a liberalism with such a strong principle of neutrality and avoidance of public discussion of the good. Some think the change a result of the critique provided by communitarianism; others see it as a clarification of basic liberal philosophy. Regardless, a refined view has emerged that begins to create an overlap between liberalism and communitarianism. This overlap inspires hope for making progress on the just allocation of health care resources. This refined view distinguishes issues within the political sphere into four types: issues related to constitutional rights and liberties; issues related to opportunities, including health care and education; issues related to the distribution of wealth such as tax policies; and other political matters that may not be matters of justice but are matters of the common good, such as environmental policies and defense policies. While there still may be disagreement about the need for a neutral justification for rights and liberties, there is consensus between communitarians and liberals that policies regarding opportunities, wealth, and matters of the common good can only be justified by appeal to a particular conception of the good. As Rawls has put it: Public reason does not apply to all political questions but only to those involving what we may call “constitutional essentials.” More expansively, Brian Barry has written: Examples of issues that fall outside [the principle of neutrality include] two distinct kinds of items. One set of items (tax and property laws) contains matters that are in principle within the realm of “justice as fairness” but are subject to reasonable disagreement about the implications of justice … The other set… contains issues that in the nature of the case cannot be resolved without giving priority to one conception of the good over others . . . There is no room for a complaint of discrimination simply on the ground that the policy by its nature suits those with one conception of the good more than it suits those with some different one. This is unavoidable. Thus, it seems there is a growing agreement between liberals, communitarians, and others that many political matters, including matters of justice and specifically, the just allocation of health care resources–can be addressed only by invoking a particular conception of the good. We may go even further. Without overstating it (and without fully defending it) not only is there a consensus about the need for a conception of the good, there may even be a consensus about the particular conception of the good that should inform policies on these nonconstitutional political issues. Communitarians endorse civic republicanism and a growing number of liberals endorse some version of deliberative democracy. Both envision a need for citizens who are independent and responsibile and for public forums that present citizens with opportunities to enter into public deliberations on social policies. This civic republican or deliberative democratic conception of the good provides both procedural and substantive insights for developing a just allocation of health care resources. Procedurally, it suggests the need for public forums to deliberate about which health services should be considered basic and should be socially guaranteed. Substantively, it suggests services that promote the continuation of the polity those that ensure healthy future generations, ensure development of practical reasoning skills, and ensure full and active participation by citizens in public deliberations-are to be socially guaranteed as basic. Conversely, services provided to individuals who are irreversibly prevented from being or becoming participating citizens are not basic and should not be guaranteed. An obvious example is not guaranteeing health services to patients with dementia. A less obvious example is guaranteeing neuropsycho- logical services to ensure children with learning disabilities can read and learn to reason. Clearly, more needs to be done to elucidate what specific health care services are basic; however, the overlap between liberalism and communitarianism points to a way of introducing the good back into medical ethics and devising a principled way of distinguishing basic from discretionary health care services. Perhaps using this progress in political philosophy we can begin to address Dan’s challenge, begin to discuss the goods and goals of medicine.
OH MY GOD, WELCOME TO OBAMACARE! IT’S TIME TO ORDER THE BACK UP GENERATOR FOR GRANDMA!
You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.
You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.
You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.
You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.
You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.
You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don’t understand it at its core.
You scare me because you lack humility & ‘class’, always blaming others.
You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals who wish to see America fail.
You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the ‘blame America ‘ crowd and deliver this message abroad.
You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector..
You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.
You scare me because you prefer ‘wind mills’ to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal and shale reserves.
You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.
You scare me because you have begun to use ‘extortion’ tactics against certain banks and corporations.
You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.
You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.
You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.
You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.
You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O’Relllys and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.
You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.
Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.
This letter was sent to the NY Times but they never acknowledged it. Big surprise. Since it hit the internet, however, it has had over 500,000 hits. Keep it going. All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. It’s happening right now.
John Boehner is the future of the Grand Old Party! Welcome to the transparancy you were promised!
Political career
In 1981 Boehner served on the board of trustees of Union Township, Butler County, Ohio. In 1984, he served as president of that board. Boehner then served as an Ohio state representative from 1985 to 1990.
Gang of Seven
In 1990, Boehner was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives in the 102nd Congress. During his freshman year, Boehner and fellow members of the Gang of Seven took on the House establishment, Republicans and Democrats alike, and successfully closed the House Bank (House banking scandal), uncovered “dine-and-dash” practices at the House Restaurant, and exposed drug sales and illegal cash-for-stamps deals at the House Post Office.
Contract With America
Boehner, along with Newt Gingrich and several other Republican lawmakers, was one of the architects of the Contract with America in 1994 that helped catapult Republicans into the majority in Congress for the first time in four decades.
Following the election of President George W. Bush, Boehner was chosen by his colleagues to serve as chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee from 2001 until 2006. There he authored several landmark reforms including the Pension Protection Act and a successful school choice program for low-income children in Washington, DC.
According to the 2008 Congress.org Power Ranking, Minority Leader Boehner is the 6th most powerful congressman (preceded by Speaker Pelosi, Majority Leader Hoyer, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles Rangel, Dean of the House John Dingell, and Appropriations Committee Chairman Dave Obey, all Democrats) and the most powerful Republican[6]. As Minority Leader, Boehner serves as an ex officio member of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
I believe John Boehner is the future of the Grand Old Party! I would hope that we could all push Mr. Boehner in the RIGHT direction.
“As President Obama prepares to wing into Manhattan’s theater district on Air Force One to take in a Broadway show, GM is preparing to file bankruptcy and families across America continue to struggle to pay their bills,” RNC spokeswoman Gail Gitcho said in an “RNC Research Piece.”
GM’s reorganization………………..$ 30 billion
GM’s Debt……………$ 172 billion
Air Force One to New York for 1 Night………………..$ 100,000.00
To Never Hear Obama Say “Inherited” Again…………..priceless
ohiobelle 