ariscus99

Here's a fun little screenshot from your beloved dailykos, they were so kind as to remove this so they could bash palin for a bit, seems they forgot, this is the internet, once it's there it's there for good. Does this put blood on the daily kos' hands as well CM?

Also, Giffords was a PRO GUN person, so if your going to say that blood is Palin and Bachman's hands because they're pro gun are you also going to say there is blood on Congresswoman Giffords as she is pro gun as well? I was just watching the press conference just now, and the sheriff's department officials said that ambulance's were on scene "Almost immediately, within a few minutes". Maybe you should look at places other than crackpot "news sources" like the dailykos.

More gun toting 2nd amendment people could have stopped this. The shooter fires once, an armed American can take action. But no, lets take all the guns from all the upstanding citizens so only criminals have them. Oh, no, when the government puts a law out saying criminals can't have guns they all come and turn them in because it's illegal right? Secondly, the ambulance service's in Tucson are private, Tucson fire provides very few ambulance's. So the governor probably didn't cut much from a private industry. The only person with "blood on their hands" is the person who pulled the trigger. You belittle a horrible tragedy by trying to place political blame on someone else. The shooter shot, no one else.

So your trying to say that because of something 2 years ago, we lost 8 million jobs this year(2010)? Thats a weak argument, and just another attempt to blame everything going on right now on a guy from 2 years ago. Everything bad = Bush, anything good = obama. And you want to talk about a lack of credibility? I'll give obama credit where credit is due. For example he got don't ask don't tell pushed through, while based on the arguments of people I know in the military is not what they wanted, it's a promise he made that he kept too, and it doesn't look like there will be much backlash from it.

There is no backpedaling, the challenge was clear, show when and where the republican leaders said they want America to fail. You failed to do so. As for job growth, thats a joke, we had a net loss of OVER 6 million jobs last year, thats not growth, when we stop losing, then start growing we will then have growth. And of course you don't want to nit pick numbers when it comes to unemployment, because you know, as do most informed Americans, the number is much lower then the "real" unemployment number. Yes it's done how it's done, that doesn't make it right, isn't that what you just said a few post's back, just because something has always been done one way doesn't mean it's right and doesn't mean it shouldn't be changed? Socialism is hardly a buzz word, it's the end goal of many democrats and liberals alike, do a quick you tube search there are hundreds of them saying that. Roseanne Barr is an example. Now that the dems aren't the majority, we can work our way out of the recent spending mess they've put on us. Some neat democrat hypocrisy, yep, it's out there too. From the posted article,

I've said before that I agree there should be incentive for doing more business here. I don't disagree with you on this point. However, if you penalize these companies, they will leave. Why haven't they done it yet? Because it's not worth it yet. The penalties aren't stiff enough for them. But if the only option is penalty or do it, if there is no incentive, why would they stay? It's not cheap to uproot a company, and it hasn't come to that YET. It very well might, and might happen soon. But how do you impose those tariffs your proposing? We are an import country, we produce very little here anymore, so will these tariff's be on everyone? If so, hold onto your wallet because the cost of living here will skyrocket. Can you just impose them on the companies that leave? Sure you can try but they can just change names, or many other easy ways of getting around that. It's not a simple fix.

250,000 people removed themselves from the job pool. This number is only representative of people who are actively filing for unemployment, it does not take into account people who no longer have unemployment benefits or those who simply aren't looking and collecting. Most analysts have the REAL unemployment number closer to 20%. I was just watching some MSNBC(gasp he watches something other than fox news) and they were showing obama's press conference talking about how great these new unemployment numbers are. After the press conference, the MSNBC crew just started tearing obama apart, saying these numbers are fluff, because of the 1/4 million Americans who are no longer looking for jobs. And another statistic they put up on the screen was about obama bragging that 1.3 million jobs were created in 2010, and that he failed to mention that over 8 million were lost, so that puts us at a net loss of over 6 million jobs last year.

As far as I'm concerned, they realized, early on, Obama was going to move the country in a bad direction, and decided to stop that movement however possible. It definitely means they want Obama to fail, IF his goal is to move more towards socialism, and in which case I too want him to fail if that's his end goal, which I'm fairly confident reading and watching many things he's said in the past.

What do you think will happen when you close those "tax loopholes?" Do you really believe the businesses will stay in the US? They'll just pick up and move to another country, forget cheap labor, they'll have cheap taxes and anything else they want, and they'll just import it here and sell as a foreign company. We aren't the biggest player anymore, and companies do leave because of over regulation as well. We have more and more US oil companies drilling elsewhere, and selling elsewhere, it wouldn't surprise me to see all US owned oil companies to be foreign owned by the end of the decade. China has ten times as many people as the US. Japan is huge, Australia, India, Israel, all big countries that are growing and consuming, and will probably be outpacing the US before to long. Then big business will pack up and move elsewhere. And you wont have capitalism anymore, and the dems and libs and leftwing loons will have won, but at what expense?

CM are you one of those people that call the police when you see a lemonade stand set up on the corner of your street? "I bet that six year old girl didn't get the proper permits and I'll be damned if I let her do business without a license in my neighborhood, that could be tainted lemonade, shut her down!!!!" Over regulation is driving business out of this country, and before too long it will all be gone and we'll be left with next to nothing. Then what are you going to do, how will you pay for your handouts when there is no industry left in this country? They will leave, they already are.

There should be SOME regulation in offshore drilling, but not so much as to shut it down or make it not profitable. People seem to think the US is the only country that people do business in, if we keep down this path of over regulation of everything, there will come a time, probably sooner than later, when large companies will just flat refuse to do business with us. Why do they need to? China and India are growing like crazy. Especially in the oil field, China is second only to the US in oil consumption and have stated that their oil consumption will grow by over 80% in the next 15 years. Meaning they will surpass us. They already use much more coal than we do, and India is right on China's tail. So when we've implemented all these regulations on everything that used to be profitable here in the US, the companies will just pull up stakes and move elsewhere. Why not? China and India don't have the ridiculous regulations and taxes, and fee's and oversight that suffocates different industries, why do you think so many have already moved huge portions of their companies overseas. So keep regulating and run this country into the ground. Then what? Companies will leave, they've already started. A good example of this on a smaller scale is California, it's like an exodus of companies trying to get out because of the high corporate taxes in California. I've actually seen a lot of billboards from Nevada telling businesses to come to their state because of lower taxes and that they'll give even larger tax breaks when you first come over. Thats what's going to happen and really already is happening to the US. I'm all for helping the "lower class" through donations, and volunteering and helping them help themselves. Not by handouts, and encouraging them to stay on welfare, unemployment, medicade what have you forever. Like I said in my previous post, I have a buddy that makes the equivalent of an $18 an hour job 40 hrs a week, while being on unemployment, why would he want to do all that to break even? If he took a job flipping burgers at min wage he'd take a HUGE pay cut. But if that wasn't there, he'd have to and he would. My wife and I donate money every year to several charities. And the last two years we've done our own impromptu adopt-a-family type deal at christmas time for two families each year. At the fire stations in so Cal we do a gift giving thing similar to toys for tots, called spark of love, and we've chose two families that we felt needed it badly, and were really trying to better themselves and took them to the super wal-mart in town and bought them everything for a Christmas dinner, presents for the kids, and for them, as the parents rarely get anything(they were simple gifts, new socks, new underpants, toiletries etc.) extra school supplies. I enjoy helping, I never do garage sales, I always give whatever I have extra to the salvation army, or to people I know who aren't as well off. As for your other post. I don't make 200k a year, I make well over 100k and with my wife's salary we clear that usually. But if you care to do some research on California fire departments look at the salaries for firemen and then realize you can usually at least double that for all the overtime we work. I have been fortunate, I've made some good choices, and worked hard. And I know cm will say that I couldn't have done it without the government, and I agree, I wouldn't have roads, or schools, I did go to public school, and a state University. But I didn't take loans, I worked, hard. I understand not all people want what I want, or have the motivation I have for certain things. And that is fine, but it shouldn't be expected for the hard workers to take care of the slackers, there are those who need a temporary hand up, I'm all for helping them. One area I believe we absolutely need lots more government regulation is in these hand out programs that are there to stop the fraud, to investigate into why these people can't find jobs, or are they just choosing not to because they're making decent money on unemployment, and don't need to find a job because they can get by just fine on the government hand out? I've said on multiple occasions we need an overhaul of the medical system, but the plan that the dems came up with just isn't IMO the best one. There are parts that are good, the pre-existing conditions part for example. The mandate, NOT a good part. That is "junk." And I guess the majority of Americans decided to vote to send their kids off to die instead of research green stuff, like your ultimatum implied. Since this was the biggest win in over 70 years.

I read over my challenge to you, post #6 here, your claim was that the republican leaders said they did not care if America failed. I then read you "proof" you did not show proof that anyone said this. You showed that they said they wanted to block Obama, just because you may think he's best for America and we'll fail without him, doesn't make it true. You bring up auto makers and say that they wont put safety equipment in cars without the government making them? Well you've been around for awhile, I imagine you may vaguely remember when cars did not have seat belts in them, did you know that most auto manufactures began adding them BEFORE the government made it mandatory, also with the Nissan comparison I made in my previous post. So yes, they will do what is best for us and safest for us, because they know that is what we want. Capitalism and safety working together hand in hand. Many car manufacturers are including blind spot recognition in their vehicles, I've driven some with that in it, it helps a lot, and makes you safer, and guess what? It's not government mandated. Mercedes Benz and Volvo are making care that will apply the brakes for you if you come up on a car in front of you too quickly to avoid an accident, also not mandated. Subaru makes their frames and bodies from an alloy that is many times stronger than the steel that is used in most cars, so strong in fact, that many of the tools firefighters use to extricate people have become useless on these cars, however the flip side is, the passenger compartment is MUCH safer with less passenger space intrusion than most any other vehicle when tested, these improvements to safety, done by the auto manufacture by choice, not mandate. I'd be willing to bet that what Issa and the corporations were referring to things that have been put in place, that the corporations were already doing, that's like the US government telling the MLB the strike zone will be this, when the MLB had already had the strike zone there for the last 107 years. But they're doing it to "protect" the batter(middle class) even tho the MLB(greedy corporate America) was already doing it, because they knew if they didn't people would go elsewhere. Did you ride in a car seat until you were 6 years old or 60 pounds? No? And yet you made it? Wow, you must be one of the lucky few that scathed by. Who do you think came up with the idea of car seats for infants and children? The government? Did they go tell a bunch of manufacturers, "hey we have this idea for a seat that kids sit in to stay safe, build it now"? No, free enterprise came up with the idea, and the government piggybacked on it. Airbags are another innovation of free market capitalism, the government didn't invent airbags and then make auto makers use them. They were voluntarily in use by auto makers for over 25 years before the government mandated it. Have you ever been to a farmers market? Maybe they aren't popular where you live, we have one here in old town every saturday from 7am till 3pm, it's a really neat thing, it's a great way to get home grown produce cheap. But many of the vendors will be leaving when and if this happens, because they can't afford the licenses and fee's that are now going to be implemented, they do what they do as a small supplement to income, if at all, many of the growers are just people with too large of a garden so they bring what they wont use to the farmers market to help out other people. I will be very sad to see this shut down. When I lived in Chico while I attended college they had Tuesday night market, they shut down all of downtown Chico for a huge farmers market and peddlers fair, this too will be going by the wayside soon, and it's been a Chico tradition for generations. My wife's great uncle went to the same school in the 60's and remembered going to the same Tuesday night market that we went too. It's a shame if our children go to Chico State they won't get to participate in this, because of the over reach of government regulation. Of course we should cherry pick what regulation is okay. If not what do you propose we do? Regulate EVERYTHING? I guess that is part of the left wing dream, government ran everything. Let's do some real quick cherry pick of the topic's we've discussed here; farmers market, no regulation, auto industry safety standards, minimal regulation(as has been shown they make all the safety breakthroughs on their own). Wall street, moderate regulation(They have shown they can't be completely trusted, but if the government steps in too far it will shut them down, like it has of late, they wont spend their money). If liberals and the left wing don't want people to rely on the government why do they keep expanding all the social handouts? Why do the FORCE people to be more reliant on the government? They make unemployment benefits so enticing why would anyone want to find a job. I have a friend who is a seasonal firemen, only works during the summer months here So. Cal, when he gets laid off each year he goes on unemployment, at which time he brings home $1900 a month. Why would he go find a job, he would have to find a job that averages about $18 an hour, and he'd have to work 40 hours a week. And thats just to break even. You can't just go out and find a job like that, so he has no motivation to get off unemployment the 4 months a year he's laid off. He also loses his medical coverage when he's laid off, so he goes and signs up for medical and gets it every year, he's got a great life while he's laid off, plays video games and works out while making $1900 a month to do nothing. If that isn't enticing people to become reliant on the government I don't know what is. As far as the republican hypocrisy, I think it's great your trying to shine a light on it, I wish you would have the courage to do it the democrats too, but I understand that is asking a lot of someone. I however am not a republican, so I need not defend them. I do find it deplorable that they chose to leave out certain parts of the constitution when they read it, it was a neat idea, they should have done it 100% tho. The founding fathers wrote it in such a way that we must see the mistakes we've made in the past, you can't erase anything from it or the bill of rights, you must amend it, but leave in the parts that were bad, so we can learn from out past. They left out the 3/5's clause because they thought it would anger people, well that was amended when we realized it was wrong, it's sad it took so long, but we did, and we tried to fix, they also left out the prohibition, the 18th amendment I believe, as it was a violent time in our past however they left the 21st in, so when you hear them talk it sounds a little weird, all of sudden we're allowed to drink? When were we not allowed to drink? Well without the 18th amendment, no one would know we weren't allowed to for 13 years. That was long winded but I think I covered everything you wrote.

CM you always assume this all or nothing mentality on government, I've called you out on it several times in the past and you never address it. There is no problem with SOME oversight, in CERTAIN aspects of our lives, what the democrats and liberals and left wing lunatics all over this great nation have succeeded in doing lately is getting oversight on EVERYTHING they can. On things of our lives that don't need oversight, how about the new bill that is aiming to shut down farmers markets, making all the people who bring their goods in buy licenses and submit to all kinds of testing that has never happened before because it wasn't and still ISN'T needed. I work for the government, as does my wife, so to say that I want NO government is just plain silly and shortsighted. There is a happy medium when it comes to regulation, and that, is hopefully what the newly appointed politicians representing the WILL OF THE PEOPLE will begin working on. An example of a company looking out for safety without the government regulations forcing it on them? Have you seen the Nissan commercial about the controlled braking that is supposedly being mandated soon by the government? That Nissan has been incorporating into their vehicles for over 6 years? Consumer safety and well being ALONG with profits can go hand in hand, it's part of capitalism, people want safe, so we provide safe so people will buy our product. It's funny you mention that when BP spilled oil the first reaction from the majority of the people was to ask what the government would do. It is just a perfect example of the US slowly turning into a nanny state. Of course people ask that because the left wing wants everyone to rely on the government for everything, so now that they are getting their wish, they get angry when people do what has been expected of them? Ask the government for help? Oh my, shocking.

Your taking a stance of personal responsibility and accountability, which is something that dems and liberals vehemently disagree with, they believe the government should always be over our shoulder controlling what we do, how we do it, who we do it with, and where our money should go. None of them will come out and say it, but deep down they all want us to be more a socialistic nation, where EVERYTHING is provided for EVERYONE. Accountability and responsibility in their minds should only be provided by the governments because "they know what's best for us."

Have you looked at p90x? They have several different training programs contained within the one, I do the doubles routine which is a weightlifting workout in the morning and a cardio in the evening, and I've been supplementing those workout's with a jillian michael's shred it with weights in the afternoon. But they also have a slim down one that is mostly cardio and a toning one, it might be worth looking into.

I couldn't find the 30 day shred video, but I got the shred it with weights video and am pretty excited to try it tomorrow, along with my p90x routine.

I've never been to big a fan of Christmas songs, but Christmas eve I heard a song that started out as an upbeat version of the 12 days of Christmas, but then very oddly incorporated about a dozen other Christmas carols into it, it was really neat the way it did it, I don't know the name and hadn't heard it since but it's my new fav. My favorite Christmas movie is Home Alone.

Saw this on CBS News Sunday Morning, and thought it was hilarious, it's just in fun, so don't get to worked up libs, though there are some good points.

The healthcare mandate finally took it's first blow today with a district court judge ruling thats it's unconstitutional! Here is the text of what the judge had to say. Having the government be able to regulate what we must buy is a very scary thought, and a very slippery slope. Hopefully this will hold up. Healthcare reform is needed, but NO ONE has the right to tell me what I must buy.

I thought you read my post history? No? So do you lie a lot? Or just assume everything? Either way, your juvenile. Who comes onto a forum to try and call someone out about something that they quite obviously have no clue as to what there talking about, and then go on to insult the people who put their lives on the line everyday to protect you. Yeah I yelled with caps, your asinine, insulting, and you add nothing to the conversation that is going on here. I'm sure all Philly cops are fat and mean and only eat pretzel's and hot dogs, thats all cops do right, you have so much insight, again, juvenile, asinine, and un-needed. Hopefully when you need their assistance, they won't treat you the same way you treat them, your disgraceful.

Read a little better buddy, I've posted several things in the WLS part of the forums, from NSV's to helping with questions of other fire and policemen, asking question's about surgeon's giving opinions on my surgeon, etc. etc. so before you go and get all high and mighty learn to read a little better(FWIW I was banded Aug '09 and am down 86 lbs, with about 40 to go). Stay the heck out of the post if you don't like the topics and if I feel like posting predominantly in one area thats my choice and I WILL EXERCISE IT! Are you a forum moderator? If not, keep to yourself.

Obama this morning saying he is convinced, the tax cuts will stimulate the economy and grow jobs in the private sector. He's starting to come around, though he's more then likely just posturing, but I'll take it.

<br><br>Wow 100% ROI? Sounds like we should lay off some more people, I don't know anything that guarantees a 100% profit margin. Giving other people's money away sounds like the way to go.

<br><br>I stated exactly this already, the obama fan boys say yes, the one's who don't like obama say no. Is there an echo in the forum. <div><br></div><div>Unethical? You are claiming that Judge Hudson ruled the way he did because he received money from a conservative organization. That would be unethical, and more than likely illegal. So your making the claim. And if you try to play word games and say you never said that, well the article you posted pretty much does. </div><div><br></div><div><br></div>

Gasp, two Obama appointees like obamacare? I'd have never guessed. And again, to say that a district court judge would do something illegal and unethical which could have severe consequences for 3000 dollars a year for 5 years is asinine.