BarryR is not alone , there are more idiots

[Spider]

I am siting in Tomah Wisconsin , waiting on permits , got the CB on listening to the chatter , politics came up , one guy actually believes, that the New Healthcare plan will not cover whites , Obama wants to replace all the white CEO's with back ones ....... I keyed up and had to ask , Hey , are you a broncofan known as BarryR or Bob ?
He said no , I said thats amazing , I thought they was alone on planet crazy .......

[ghwk]

What was his response to that?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Was it broncofan7?

[Spider]

Originally Posted by ghwk

What was his response to that?

nothing .........

[barryr]

Another idiot thread started by the toothless wonder. Next, a thread what he had for breakfast and had to soften since his gums are too sensitive. Lay off the meth already.

[Dudeskey]

Originally Posted by barryr

Lay off the meth already.

You oughta read up on DOT rule 49 CFR part 40 before spewing out your trademark ad hominem bs...™

[Spider]

Originally Posted by barryr

Another idiot thread started by the toothless wonder. Next, a thread what he had for breakfast and had to soften since his gums are too sensitive. Lay off the meth already.

was it something I said ?

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Dudeskey

You oughta read up on DOT rule 49 CFR part 40 before spewing out your trademark ad hominem bs...™

it is BarryR , he wouldnt know DOT from county sheriff

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Spider

I am siting in Tomah Wisconsin , waiting on permits , got the CB on listening to the chatter , politics came up , one guy actually believes, that the New Healthcare plan will not cover whites , Obama wants to replace all the white CEO's with back ones ....... I keyed up and had to ask , Hey , are you a broncofan known as BarryR or Bob ?
He said no , I said thats amazing , I thought they was alone on planet crazy .......

I know your attempting to be funny, but I have always been straight foward in my concerns with Obama and Bush. It seems a common charicteristic of those with a political ax to grind to lump everyone into one group, and connect absurd concerns, to legit ones like supporting a system that is already trillions in debt -- ie Medicare in order to dismiss various auguments --

[barryr]

Originally Posted by Dudeskey

You oughta read up on DOT rule 49 CFR part 40 before spewing out your trademark ad hominem bs...™

Yeah hypocrite, we'll see you make this same suggestion to those you agree with. Oh, you never do, how shocking. I don't recall starting idiot threads with the sole purpose to personally attack members in forums, but it's ok with you as long as you typically agree with their points. Hypocrisy at its finest.

[barryr]

Originally Posted by Bob

I know your attempting to be funny, but I have always been straight foward in my concerns with Obama and Bush. It seems a common charicteristic of those with a political ax to grind to lump everyone into one group, and connect absurd concerns, to legit ones like supporting a system that is already trillions in debt -- ie Medicare in order to dismiss various auguments --

This is his usual tactic, among other liberals. Also, as one can see, they are normally weak-minded, so typically do all they can to generate help from like-minded in attacking those they don't agree with and can't come up with legit points other than talking points from lefty blogs. This explains the threads that are only started to attack forum members. I doubt this genius could even tell you why he supports Obama's healthcare plan without finding out what those objective sites such as dailykos or huffington says why he should.

[Spider]

Originally Posted by Bob

I know your attempting to be funny, but I have always been straight foward in my concerns with Obama and Bush. It seems a common charicteristic of those with a political ax to grind to lump everyone into one group, and connect absurd concerns, to legit ones like supporting a system that is already trillions in debt -- ie Medicare in order to dismiss various auguments --

, dude you have concerns , but they are so miss placed , it makes you look like a whack job ...... seriously ..... Just like the FDR thread , you get all of your info from some right wing nut job and take it as gospel ..... Or that one one about Obama wanting a big bank to fail in order to take control over everything .... It is **** like that , that makes everyone lump you into BarryR category

[Spider]

Originally Posted by barryr

This is his usual tactic, among other liberals. Also, as one can see, they are normally weak-minded, so typically do all they can to generate help from like-minded in attacking those they don't agree with and can't come up with legit points other than talking points from lefty blogs. This explains the threads that are only started to attack forum members. I doubt this genius could even tell you why he supports Obama's healthcare plan without finding out what those objective sites such as dailykos or huffington says why he should.

..... you are a certified nut job ......

[spdirty]

Lisa is a much better trucker than spider (duck, put on throat protection, insert smiley)

[frerottenextelway]

Originally Posted by Bob

I know your attempting to be funny, but I have always been straight foward in my concerns with Obama and Bush. It seems a common charicteristic of those with a political ax to grind to lump everyone into one group, and connect absurd concerns, to legit ones like supporting a system that is already trillions in debt -- ie Medicare in order to dismiss various auguments --

Your last thread alledged that Obama wants and is trying to make the country fail.

I got nothing against conservatism, other than I think it's a bad philosphy, and the George Will's of the world make a good debate and bring ideas to the table that are worthwhile to listen to.

But the Obama was born in Kenya, Obama wants to the country to fail, Obama is a black panther, Obama (w/e crazy theory) is all the same. It's looney-bin trash. It's Gaffney 9-11 type stuff.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by Spider

, dude you have concerns , but they are so miss placed , it makes you look like a whack job ...... seriously ..... Just like the FDR thread , you get all of your info from some right wing nut job and take it as gospel ..... Or that one one about Obama wanting a big bank to fail in order to take control over everything .... It is **** like that , that makes everyone lump you into BarryR category

But its FDR's own words that condemn him, its not a "one source" type of thing -- he was the one proposing a second bill of rights and it is a historical fact. I have the wild notion that the implications of confusing "rights" with wants (that can only come through hard work) is what can bankrupt this nation. My crazy philosophy (based on Founding Father ideals) leads me to conclude that to force/manipulate equal results to all humans with unequal talents who put forth unequal effort is not only illogical, but it can lead to tyranny.

You can think I am a whack job, it’s your right, but I don’t think my views are so radically different from what the Founding Fathers believed on a whole number of issues -- so what may be at the very core of the Nation’s founding documents is increasingly “radical” not because my views are straying, but because they are consistent to them. I respect your views Spider, I always have – and sometimes rethink my own thoughts based on what I read around here. Sometimes I am very wrong (like I was in my thinking that R’s didn’t spend as much as D’s.) But anyway, I wish you the best…

[cutthemdown]

It cracks me up when truckers start talking regulations like it makes them smart. Ditch diggers know how to dig a ditch better then me also but I still don't care.

DOT reg what? like that would stop truckers from doing Meth. Spider however does not do Meth he is a family man..........So that means he drinks heavily and probably hasn't had sex he is really excited about in yrs.........except for that perty lil thing on route 40 in Okla, that he dumped in New Mexico on his way back to Wyoming.

As far as Obama being born in the USA? Funny stuff that really doesn't matter once you have a birth certificate a state will say is legal. If that happens I say you are an American because we set things up so if you are really good at breaking the law you get away with it.

Ruin the country though? Naw he thinks what he wants is best for the country just like Bush though getting rid of Saddam was the best for the country.

As far as Obama being a black panther I heard they turned him down because after all he is half white.

[cutthemdown]

Also as bad as Presidents can be we set it up so the don't even last a decade. IMO it would take more then 8 yrs of bad decisions to ruin the country.

If anything people will vote repubs into the Congress very soon to counter the dem majority. Americans usually get nervous when one party has too much power. Or it could be running the country just a cluster**** and when you do get power you are bound to lose it. The job of keeping AMericans happy might just be impossible.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by frerottenextelway

Your last thread alledged that Obama wants and is trying to make the country fail.

I got nothing against conservatism, other than I think it's a bad philosphy, and the George Will's of the world make a good debate and bring ideas to the table that are worthwhile to listen to.

But the Obama was born in Kenya, Obama wants to the country to fail, Obama is a black panther, Obama (w/e crazy theory) is all the same. It's looney-bin trash. It's Gaffney 9-11 type stuff.

I see your point, how could anyone want it to fail? But what part of America's past does he want to fail? So far it has been the small businessman, a solid dollar, and an increasing number of Liberties. I think he is throwing out the baby with the bath water.

If Obama feels that pain can change healthcare, clean the environment, and increase his powerbase, I don’t think he is beyond it. But his actions don’t make any sense to me if he wants to reduce unemployment for the next several years. By going after private companies, and taking them over and replacing CEO's he gains more control over the means of production -- which may be of more long-term value to him. Will cap and trade create jobs or loose them? -- its freaking intent is to reduce gases that come from production. Don’t you find any of his actions concerning?

I think Obama sees government as the solution to many more problems than I do -- so yes, I do think that this administration can only transform the economy quickly (in ways that are not rooted in our history, or justified by the limits prescribed in the Constitution) before the next election cycle unless there is an equal crisis -- if unemployment is high, and we are having other economic problems. IF you believe that America's system is better off if it is transformed into something Socialist, then how else would one accomplish this monumental undertaking? Its logical -- the ends justifies the means.

I think the end-game will have horrific implications in reduced Liberties, than most realize at this point -- but by then, will be very hard to dismantle, and the increased executive power will go to an R (and most R's will take the power and abuse it as well) Very, very few would respect the power of the people, and give it back to the people.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by cutthemdown

Also as bad as Presidents can be we set it up so the don't even last a decade. IMO it would take more then 8 yrs of bad decisions to ruin the country.

If anything people will vote repubs into the Congress very soon to counter the dem majority. Americans usually get nervous when one party has too much power. Or it could be running the country just a cluster**** and when you do get power you are bound to lose it. The job of keeping AMericans happy might just be impossible.

Two issues if R's get back into office:

1.) what will these new guys do is reducing teh size of government, spending, and protecting personal Liberties -- will they have anything at their core -- except lust for power.

2.) By 2012 what can be dismantled?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by Bob

My crazy philosophy (based on Founding Father ideals) leads me to conclude that to force/manipulate equal results to all humans with unequal talents who put forth unequal effort is not only illogical, but it can lead to tyranny.

You can think I am a whack job, it’s your right, but I don’t think my views are so radically different from what the Founding Fathers believed on a whole number of issues --

You say you're philosophically tied to the founding fathers based in part apparently on the notion that they created a system that assigns basic rights to people that allow them to succeed on their own merits instead of some kind of artificially contrived system that fixes the results ahead of time.

Fine.

You do realize that the founding fathers lacked the courage to defend the same basic rights they penned into our Declaration of Independence for the people we LEGALLY kidnapped, murdered, raped and tortured for nearly 100 years after they birthed the nation because they were concerned with the political consequences of losing the support of the southern colonies...right? You also realize that the system they established was deliberately designed to not only create unequal rights, but unequal results as well...right? And you do realize that this system of "rights" they created was so exclusionary that it offered these rights to less than half the people in America...right? And finally...do you further realize that this same system was flawed enough that it's needed to be amended 27 times since it's introduction?

So tell me...would you like to keep it as it is or return to what it was in the beginning?

[frerottenextelway]

Originally Posted by Bob

I see your point, how could anyone want it to fail? But what part of America's past does he want to fail? So far it has been the small businessman, a solid dollar, and an increasing number of Liberties. I think he is throwing out the baby with the bath water.

If Obama feels that pain can change healthcare, clean the environment, and increase his powerbase, I don’t think he is beyond it. But his actions don’t make any sense to me if he wants to reduce unemployment for the next several years. By going after private companies, and taking them over and replacing CEO's he gains more control over the means of production -- which may be of more long-term value to him. Will cap and trade create jobs or loose them? -- its freaking intent is to reduce gases that come from production. Don’t your find any of his actions concerning?

I think Obama sees government as the solution to many more problems than I do -- so yes, I do think that this administration can only transform the economy quickly (in ways that not rooted in our history, or justified by the limits prescribed in the Constitution) before the next election cycle unless there is an equal crisis -- if unemployment is high, and we are having other economic problems. IF you believe that America's system is better off if it is transformed into something Socialist, then how else would one accomplish this monumental undertaking? Its logical -- the ends justifies the means.

I think the end-game will have horrific implications in reduced Liberties, than most realize at this point -- but by then, will be very hard to dismantle, and the increased executive power will go to an R (and most R's will take the power and abuse it as well) Very, very few would respect the power of the people, and give it back to the people.

Okay, let me go through these.

First off, the notion that Obama wants America to fail to gain power is every bit as much whack-job lunacy as Gaffney and his 9/11 theories, so I'm not going to bother going into that.

Second, Obama does not want the government to control health care, he wants a government option in health insurance. It's to give people an option similiar to our medicare system, not an option similiar to our military health care (although perhaps it should be).

Third, this health care overhaul would be a tremendous boost to our small businesses. Nothing is hurting our small businesses and future small businesses more than the cost of the employer to provide health insurance to the employees. Besides payroll, it is the single biggest expense to an average small business owner.

Fourth, you asked why did money go to bailout wall street but not a small bank that provided small business loans. Point one, this was done on the last guys clock, not Obamas. Point two, the bailout was to save us from being a failed state.

More on Fourth. Lehman Bros was a AAA+ rated company, which means money markets were invested in that. When it went under, and we did not bail it out, it caused money markets to have a return of below 0%. This caused an electronic run on the money markets until they were literally frozen by the U.S. government. If this had been alowed to go on, or if other major banks had gone under, it would have caused us to be a failed state. If you have a savings account, or a 401k, or whatever, you would have woken up one morning in September and had $0 in it. Your life savings, unless it's in a safe in your house or whatever, would have been completely gone. This is not the case with small local banks.

Fifth, you talk about a weakening dollar. Let me give you graphs (both taken from Google Finance), one with the USD vs the British Pound and one with the USD vs the Australian Dollar.




We should know by now that bubbles are generally bad, however good they may be in the short term. And those bubbles? Those are f'n huge. Thank God they are popping. Our dollar has been artifically inflated since the world collapse, if those had kept on going it could have been catastrophic.

Sixth, you have talked about high unemployment and then talk about the car companies. The Right generally wanted to see them go under to bust unions and move money to southern states. The Left and Obama wants them to succeed because that's a lot of f'n jobs. The loss in auto jobs covers almost all the recent jumps in unemployment over the past month or so. Imagine if they were completely shutdown for good, as the Right wanted to see happen?

EDIT: I love dipping into substance. That was fun. I win.

[Bob]

Originally Posted by footstepsfrom#27

You say you're philosophically tied to the founding fathers based in part apparently on the notion that they created a system that assigns basic rights to people that allow them to succeed on their own merits instead of some kind of artificially contrived system that fixes the results ahead of time.

Fine.

You do realize that the founding fathers lacked the courage to defend the same basic rights they penned into our Declaration of Independence for the people we LEGALLY kidnapped, murdered, raped and tortured for nearly 100 years after they birthed the nation because they were concerned with the political consequences of losing the support of the southern colonies...right? You also realize that the system they established was deliberately designed to not only create unequal rights, but unequal results as well...right? And you do realize that this system of "rights" they created was so exclusionary that it offered these rights to less than half the people in America...right? And finally...do you further realize that this same system was flawed enough that it's needed to be amended 27 times since it's introduction?

So tell me...would you like to keep it as it is or return to what it was in the beginning?

Your not wrong in every example -- they did lack courage on the slavery issue in my opinion -- for their time they were progressive on many ideas, but fell obviously very short on this issue. I honestly don’t know what would have happened if when we founded the country what would have happened if slavery was banned (I cant remember when the cotton gin was invented.) Was slavery too entrenched by then, what was the popular sentiment? Could two America's have survived? Would it have created a wedge that would have destroyed everything before the experiment of ever-extending Liberties could be tried?

I know that Benjamin Franklin was very much against it, and fought against it .... I also know that some of the founders were pushing for the concept of "life, liberty and property" to be the governing motto, but as slaves were considered property at the time that would have setup a system that would have made it much more difficult to ever deal with slavery at some future point -- so they left the door open, for when the time was ready.

So you are right, that an evil was allowed to exist, sadly.

Did the framework of Liberty that was defined to the majority of Americans not create an environment that allowed for an explosion of inventions and property to occur? In terms of wealth, but 1905 America produced 50% of everything manufactured in the world. yet our population at the time was about 5%. We invented the car, airplane, TV, radio, light bulb, the telegraph, were the first to land on the moon – was it because we were smarter, or harder working? No, I don’t think so. It was because there was a framework that protected Liberty and rewarded and encouraged individual efforts (not collective) and allowed also for the freedom to fail. There is so much more that make America great, than we should be ashamed of -- all of the greatest ideals, like those captured by the founding documents, amplify the weakness of the imperfect people who reached beyond their ability to live --

You, 200 + years later are sickened by some of their actions, and lack of courage? How many of the signers of the declaration lost everything they had? If you do not revere them, I wonder who’s history your are reading from? In honest reflection, think how barbaric your actions & your words will seem 200 years from now?

[footstepsfrom#27]

Originally Posted by Bob

You, 200 + years later are sickened by some of their actions, and lack of courage? How many of the signers of the declaration lost everything they had? If you do not revere them, I wonder who’s history your are reading from? In honest reflection, think how barbaric your actions & your words will seem 200 years from now?

There is nothing barbaric about my words or actions that time will vilify. However, you're really missing my point. I'm not making the point that they should be disdained, I'm making the point that you base your politics on the idea that equal opportunity produced this economic juggernaut when in fact it wasn't "equal" at all. You specify exasperation with some imaginary system you think Obama will institute that discards what you phrase as a system which you think will attempt to create equal results by damaging equal opportunity or punishing those with talent and a work ethic. I'm merely pointing out what a false image you're presenting. Our system began as one that was designed to do exactly what you're railing against now...skew the results to those we wanted to succeed while destroying the opportunities for those we didn't. In fact it went much further than this. It not only disavowed offering opportunity for all, it made the opportunity for some a product of the very work others did for them. Hence your view that the founding fathers created some kind of commercial utopia based on freedom and free markets as the basis for success is not only misguided and historically wrong, but in fact the reality is exactly opposite that.

[El Minion]

Originally Posted by frerottenextelway

Okay, let me go through these.

.........
Third, this health care overhaul would be a tremendous boost to our small businesses. Nothing is hurting our small businesses and future small businesses more than the cost of the employer to provide health insurance to the employees. Besides payroll, it is the single biggest expense to an average small business owner.

........

Your Health Policy Has Been Canceled
Government-run insurance could not be worse than what small businesses already face.

By Jonathan Weber
Posted Monday, July 27, 2009 - 11:01am
We got a letter earlier this month from our company health-insurance provider, informing us that our policy had been canceled for late payment of the premium. No warning or notice, just a cancellation letter. After lots of begging and pleading, a $3,700 check, and four days of heartburn for yours truly, we got it reinstated.

I suspected that the real reason for the cancellation was that we had the audacity to actually file some significant claims. The policy has a $5,000 deductible, but I had an appendectomy last year (about $18,000) and a few other claims as well. The insurance company assured us that this was not the case: Lots of small businesses had gotten cancellation notices, because lots of companies are falling behind on their premiums in this economy and the insurance company is cracking down.

Somehow I didn't find that very reassuring. On the contrary, this incident reinforced my strong conviction that the idea that health care reform isn't good for small businesses is arrant nonsense. If there is one thing the federal government can do to help my company, health care reform is it.

Consider the position we're in with the above-mentioned incident. Unlike almost anything else we buy, health insurance is not something we can simply get from another vendor. In writing policies, insurance companies require that you have continuous coverage, or else they will exclude coverage for all pre-existing conditions (which when you get to be my age can be a lot of things). Thus cancellation of the policy would have permanently undermined our ability to get insurance.

I'm not saying we should be able to pay late with impunity. But a system in which we are subject to the shifting policies of an all-but-unregulated private insurance company that effectively has the power to deny our ability to get coverage anywhere is absurd.

Further, I had to spend several days sweating this issue, working with our office manager to fix it, trying to decide whether to tell people about the problem or wait until we got it resolved. This was time and energy not spent on anything having to do with what NewWest.Net is in business to do.

While the final components of the reform package remain in flux, it appears certain to include a health insurance exchange in which individuals could choose from an array of plans—probably including a government-sponsored "public option." As an employer, I could choose—or, rather, we collectively as a company could choose—whether to keep our current group plan or use the exchange.

It's more than likely that the exchange would provide better options than our current, minimalist group policy. The company could decide whether to pay a portion of the premiums. If we didn't, we could be subject to a penalty tax, although very small businesses like NewWest.Net would probably be exempted. Either way, we'd compensate people in some fashion—just as we currently pay 50 percent of the group plan premiums even though we're not obliged to provide health insurance.

In short, the costs to NewWest.Net almost certainly would not go up, and they might go down. The insurance options for employees would improve. Most importantly from my standpoint, the whole issue would go away as something that I had to spend a lot of time worrying about. No more calls from employees wondering why, say, the pharmacy isn't accepting the insurance. No more wrangling with the insurance company and the doctors over why they couldn't agree on the appropriate reimbursement for a particular service.

I fail to see the downside.

The National Federation of Independent Businesses says small businesses should oppose the legislation because it "fails to lower" health care costs, ignoring the fact that there are a lot of issues here besides cost (see above).

It also exaggerates the burden of the "mandate" that would be imposed; it's a non-issue if you already provide health insurance, and if you're too big for the exemption, it's only a matter of equity that you do your part in sharing the costs (your competitors will be similarly obliged). Businesses are already subject to all kinds of mandates, and this one hardly looks especially burdensome.

There is, of course, the issue of how all of this would be paid for, which is a legitimate concern. But that relates to small businesses only insofar as what's bad for the country would be bad for small businesses.

I can understand why insurance companies, pharmaceutical companies, and doctors and other health care providers would oppose reform; it will reduce their pricing power, and thus possibly reduce their income. I can understand why rich people might oppose it, too: Health care isn't a problem for them, and they'll probably have to pay more taxes to solve it for other people. And I can understand why Republicans, as a political strategy, would oppose reform: Failure would be a big defeat for Obama, and a successful reform would be a big feather in the Democratic cap.

But the notion that health care reform is bad for small businesses is little more than a purposefully misleading bag of rhetoric that has nothing to do with the real issues facing small businesses. I desperately hope that most business owners see through it and communicate with their elected representatives accordingly.

Jonathan Weber is the founder, publisher, and CEO of New West, a media company covering life and business in the Rocky Mountain West.