Well, there are few, if any, security experts who are not self appointed.
But a curious part of your statement is about his "undeserved" pension and living off the taxes of others. That is odd, considering your past postings that seem show that you think 99% of all Americans should be living off the taxes of the other 1-percent.
Most college kids never needed or wanted an insurance policy prior to ACA, and they still don't. Most college kids in fact, are smart enough to know the only reason they are being asked to purchase insurance now is to underwrite others' expenses.
There is a difference between society not trusting someone, and you being personally fearful of them.
I'm curious why you keep implying that "law enforcement" is somehow made up of superhumans with none of the faults you attribute to us normal law-abiding citizens. Really the whole point of the US Constitution is to ensure that the government never has powers and tools that are prohibited for ordinary citizens to possess or control.
If you ever spent any time in Texas, you would know that pretty much everyone that lives there considers themselves a Texas cowboy to some extent. Some can affort to act it out, most can't. No BS, nothing hidden about it.
(See "weapons of mass destruction," for example?)
If you are going to use examples, at least pick one that hasn't already been discredited. Or did you miss the whole bit about how the claim that the weapons had been smuggled to Syria were confirmed recently, and actually put to use?
"Republicans have this weird idea that corporations can charge whatever they want for something, passing any and all costs to the consumer."
Of course they have to pass all of their costs on to the consumer. Once they get to the point that they can't pass on those costs, they go out of business (at least those unlucky enough not to merit a taxpayer bailout).
"Still the main point is as cost would spiral wildly, people will notice, and there won't be much of a fight to end Obamacare, would their be?"
Which, if you have been paying attention to the liberal politicians, really is the whole point. The current players in the healthcare industry will be forced out of business by the unsustainable government-mandated business model, at which point the only option left is goverment-run healthcare.
Oddly enough the GOP gained majority in the house for one reason, their constituents were not happy with the new law and wanted it stopped. So how is trying to stop it undemocratic?
Really, you think that is the worst that can happen, people just won't sign up? What about all the people that have already been losing their jobs, and those whose jobs are becoming part-time? What about the estimated $6000 per household costs for those subsidizing the new plans (surely you don't think the government portion of all those is really going to be "free", as it is being advertised?). What about the estimated $1Trillion in new taxes on healthcare providers and manufacturers. Don't think that's going to get passed on to consumers?
Not a whole lot of facts in that diatribe. Just opinions, which means there are equally valid opposite opinions.
Yes, they lost elections, but won significantly in the latest one. The House has been passing multiple legislation to fund the government, protecting the "full faith and credit" in the process. It is the Democrats in the Senate and Whitehouse who are and have been refusing to compromise, instead childishly clinging to their failing ideals. And yes, both sides are absolutely within their constitutionally granted power to act exactly as they have been - following the perceived wishes of those who sent them to Washington. Hardly an attack on the constitiutional order.
Other opinions - the stimulus prevented a global depression of far worse proportions. Actually many economist think this administrations actions have prolonged, not shortened the current economic problems.
Its hard not to be labeled racist when liberals so freely apply the term to everyone that opposes their misguided efforts. Sure, there are people who oppose Obama because of his race. But the majority of the racial tension escalation isn't coming from conservatives, it is coming from people with a racial agenda.
Yes, its constitutionality was upheld. And yes, the civilized way to modify, repeal or fix it would be through the legislative process. Unfortunately the Senate has been holding that process "hostage" for the last few years, refusing to compromise or even acknowledge any legislation to do it.
Here's the problem. The law was passed with its contents blocked from our and effectively our representatives' scrutiny until after it was passed. All the rationalizations and sales tactics used to get it passed are now all turning out to be either stated in ignorance or outright fabrications.
Now that Americans and our representatives are seeing the true effects, there are very few ways, and little time, to get it slowed down until the facts can all be brought to light. Whether true or not, things like the estimated $6000 per household per year cost increases, $1trillion in additional taxes (to insurance companies, medical device manufacturers, etc) that will be passed on to middle class consumers, all are contributing to the effort.
Corporations have traditionally paid a very large part of insurance premiums for their employees. By moving to the exchange, the employees get to pay 100% of it. Do you really believe the promised savings touted for this new model will be so great that individuals' costs will go down at that point?
I wonder why you brought Obamacare into the debt ceiling debate? Could it be because it actually is going to be very costly to the budget?
You state that it "is working" and that early numbers indicate it is going to be saving even more money that originally projected. What do you base that on? It hasn't even begun to be implemented in any meaningful fashion. Even the early provisions of it are anticipated to be so damaging to the Democrat election efforts that they are getting pushed out until after elections.
The only people that can possibly save money are those that couldn't afford any insurance before. Everyone else is either going to be paying a premium to keep their insurance, or be forced into part tiime jobs or unemployment, thus having to buy their own with government assistance.
Re your item #1. "Raising the debt limit no more increases the debt then getting a higher credit limit on a credit card." That is completely correct. What you are ignoring is that when the party getting the increase is demonstrably irresponsible with its finances, banks are smart enough to not increase the credit limit. People that are in such bad shape that they need to get new credit cards to use to make payments on existing ones can't be trusted with even more money. In that respect, higher credit limits and a higher debt limit are exactly the same. And the people and institutions that look for it need to be chastised.
"Crisis averted, total military cost: $0.00. US service personnel lost: 0 "
Cost to America's value in world matters: incalculable
Obama's first and only option was to threaten to blow them up if they didn't do what he told them.
Russia negotiated a non-military option that everyone seems happy with. Maybe its time for Obama to dust off his Nobel peace prize?