RV ME

I did not realize that Indonesia had a Boy Scouts of America chapter.

Two completely separate issues. Gerrymandering is nothing more than the swamp polyticks assuring their lifetime seat on the gravy train. Voter fraud is the actual casting of illegal ballots.

So many things wrong with the OP that not sure where to begin. I guess I should start with… LINK?!?!?!?!? It would be interesting to see if the website had the same concerns when the Dems actually did “get their greedy hands on our healthcare” and did actually cause great pain to millions. The OP touches on some of the things that were said would happen before the progressive Dems forced this monstrosity on the American people. After lamenting the old news about the catastrophic Democrat only passed law, they demand Republicans fix it. With this I agree, and the only real fix is complete repeal. Would it make the progressives feel better if instead of calling it a repeal we said we just aborted Obamacare? After all, the libs have never met an abortion they were against.

For NASCAR's annual trip to the Brickyard this afternoon.

1 fraudulent vote is too many, especially if it could be prevented with a simple voter ID requirement. So at what point does “virtually non-existent” become a problem? After all, it takes is 1 fraudulent vote to change an election.

So the swamp won this battle, but the fight is not over. And as Patty said, repeal is the key, replace must come afterward. Obummercare should never have made it out of Congress, and should have been rules unconstitutional simply because of the way the law was written. But since it is still the law of the land it must be wiped from the books and only be remembered as the skidmark that it has always been. As written, the HHS Secretary has wide latitude to change the law based on……..nothing but what they want the law to be at that time. Historically this would not pass Constitutional muster. But since in this day and age it has, if I were Trump I would counterpunch the polyticks in the swamp with the following; “It is said that one must hit bottom before beginning the climb back up. Regarding the horrible law the Democrats in Congress passed and the Republicans now refuse to repeal, apparently Congress has not hit bottom yet. Understandably, since they were granted an exemption from the prior administration weaseling their way out of the law they created. So beginning immediately this administration will rescind all previous waivers and changes to the law by the previous administration. And the very first wavier to be rescinded will be the one exempting Congress and their staff from participating in the exchanges as written in the law. Instead of looking at every issue as to how it will affect the various political parties, and even worse yet how it will affect you individual re-election, do the job you were sent here to do and work for the American people.” As for the replacement, I am open minded but it will not have my support if the government is involved in any way. Why is health insurance not available like car, home, or life insurance? The only involvement of government should be to remove the restrictions on selling insurance, not declaring those who make 400% above the poverty level to now be in poverty and eligible to receive “free healthcare”. I am sick of polyticks buying votes with other people’s money.

Glad to see Trumpcare or Ryancare, or whatever care you want to call it failed to pass, but unfortunately that means Obummercare is still the law of the land. The polyticks swamp creatures better repeal it, or say hello to Speaker Facelift again.

Recently, I took some greef for lumping Social Security in with other government tax programs. Read the following this morning that pretty much confirms my arguments. Taking the money sent to the “trust fund” and instead investing it in your own personal account would remove the $$ being stolen by the polyticks thus reducing their power, and taking away one of the wedges they use to divide the Country. RV ME Social Security going bust: The inconvenient issue By Monica Showalter Buried down deep in the Friday afternoon news dump is the not inconsequential news that Social Security is about to go bust – a lot faster than anyone had predicted earlier. Investor's Business Daily sums up the coming fiasco pretty well: The Social Security report finds that the "trust fund" will run out of money in just 17 years. The news only gets worse from there. The program's unfunded liability over the next 75 years is now $12.5 trillion, which is up from $11.4 trillion last year and $4.7 trillion a decade ago. In other words, Social Security's long-term unfunded liability has increased by 166% in the span of 10 years. And on a cash flow basis, Social Security is now losing money every year. Last year it was $54 billion in the red. In a decade the annual shortfall will reach $215 billion – after adjusting for inflation. It's only by spending "interest" earned in the program's "trust fund" that Social Security can cover its current obligations. But remember, the trust fund is comprised entirely of Treasury debt. The federal government still has to borrow or raise taxes when the trust fund cashes in those bonds. There's no getting around it: no matter how much the left claims the system is sound, it isn't. It's going bust. Let's describe what going bust is going to look like. It's not going to be a nuclear explosion. It's not going to be pushing Grandma in her wheelchair off the cliff, as the left enjoys positing whenever someone tries to bring up some means of averting a fiasco. Social Security is so creepily structured that going bust is not going bust. As with casinos, the house always wins. The way "bust" happens is that recipients get an automatic 17% reduction of benefits overnight. Living on that as your retirement program after paying in for decades? Too bad. The hard reality is, the government owes you absolutely nothing. It can give you "what you paid in," at its customary zero-percent interest. Compared to what you would have earned in stocks or bonds, it can give you more, or most likely, it can give you less. And it's about an eighth to a quarter of your income you pay in, year after year, unable to save it for a real retirement account. Demographics are probably the main reason it's happening – people having fewer kids has its impact, no matter how you try to spin it. And now, with illegals claiming benefits, often more than they ever paid in, and the meth crisis ravaging Midwestern towns and throwing millions out of the productive labor force, the kitty that once held your money is being drained faster than anyone "anticipated." The trust fund is anything but a trust fund – at least, not for you. The whole issue was disgracefully ignored during the 2016 presidential election, as well as most elections before that one, with political consultants calling it "the third rail of American politics," as if the truth is too painful. There remains, as ever, one proven way out outside slashed benefits and politicians blaming the other party as that happens. It's called "the Chilean Model," as 2012 presidential candidate Herman Cain put it, in what was his valiant effort to get the voters to get serious about the issue. The Chilean Model, the system of private savings accounts for retirement, is practiced in 30 countries. It was developed on a nationwide scale by José Piñera, the former labor minister of Chile during the 1970s, when the country was a socialist rubble and the coffers were bare, and it has worked every time it's been tried. Piñera faced considerable obstacles, no small ones from Big Labor, as well as numerous disinformation campaigns and Grandma-off-the-cliff scenarios. He was able to overcome all of them and was stunned to find that the option he offered to Chile's workers was lapped up at far higher rates than even he anticipated. The whole story is worth reading in these pages here. If we don't do it, we go bust. And not in an explosive way – in that sly, insidious crumbling ruin way the system currently provides for those who keep sweeping the problem under the rug. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2017/07/social_security_going_bust_the_inconvenient_issue.html

Even worse when the entire party supports a known lie and/or liar. Kind of like the Dems backing the lying Obummer and the even bigger liar Hildabeast. if the Dems followed your advice rather than back their liars to the bitter end, they might have been able to put a viable candidate up against Trump but instead stood by the lying Hildabeast and went down with the ship. Now the entire Dem party is 100% invested in the Russian stole the election lie. Stupid follows as stupid leads.

I only pointed out the blatant contradiction NYK used by claiming to be for free speech and the stating "you can't say that". But NYK can't take my rights away. When it comes to taking away our rights, only the authority of government can do that. According to our Constitution, God gave us this right and only an unGodly government can take them away. Not some loudmouth fool on a website that can't even admit what he actually said. That being said, back on the road. 4 corners, ready or not here we come.

Where are the similarities? Name one person in authority (not talking about the regulars at the Lodge). Who claimed Hildabeast could not say a word. I'm sure her staff said she shouldn't have, but again, that is not prohibiting free speech. That can only take place when the government squelches words from being used. Those of us who rightly criticizing her for poorly exercising her right were merely doing the same. Personally I am glad she did. After reading the post election editorial from her hired pollster it was stated that was the single issue that turned the undecided in the swing states against her and crumbled the blue wall of invincibility.

Hey BA, I'm on the road without access to the usual equipment so I can't look something up and paste it and wondered if you would help. You see, it seems funny to me how so many liberals are really socialists and communists. Could you post a map for me off all the states with an active communist party?

To be ignorant means to not know, to be stupid mean to be unable to learn. Your last chance to show which group you are in. Let’s recap to help lift the fog of stupidity and perhaps you will neither appear to be stupid, and no longer be ignorant. I entered this foray and quoted one sentence from you; “Freedom of speech gives no one the right to denigrate anyone based on race. If I cannot say it, you cannot say it. “ I correctly responded that freedom of speech does mean exactly that, and then I quoted a line misattributed to Voltaire and pointed out you are not the arbiter of what people are allowed to say. That apparently set you off because you did not actually respond to what I said, you just told me to deal with it. As a matter of fact, your next 5 responses regarding me you have never been able to muster the strength or intellectual honesty to man up to what you originally said. In those responses you attempt to revise history (very liberalish of you) and claim that you told the Gal’s they “shouldn’t” use a word. IF that is what you would have originally said, I never would have responded and apparently hurt your feeling for pointing out your error. My second response in full; You were the only one making the claim that someone else could not say something. Not should not, but could not. Big difference there and I am surprised you can’t see that difference. You can decide for yourself and for whatever reason that you can’t say something. That is your right and does nothing to stifle free speech. But when you say that someone else can’t say something (which is exactly what you did) then you are promoting the antithesis of free speech. Not really any more complicated than that. Please point out the bullying displayed by me in this response. No personal attacks, no snide remarks, but it somehow put a burr under your saddle. I suspect it is because I merely pointed out you were incorrect, but since you could not intellectually defend what you said you felt the need to attack me personally with; ...Dude relax , take a breath; and another. If my statement above flustered you to the point where you couldn't really think straight, or you couldn't keep all the points I made straight in your head because they couldn't be even a little bit right , I could understand that. Its ok. I do recall that in one of the earlier segments I did say something to the effect "that if I cannot use these terms then you (Sgt) shouldn't either. Perhaps that's what you were referring to? Does this mean that maybe, just maybe nyk was saying that if a rule is written it should be fairly applied to all people and not against a select few? Hmmmm , yup. Ooooh is this a universally applied conservative thought ? A count of the hands say, drumroll please , YUP !!! Come to think of it, you couldn’t even admit what you actually said when quoting yourself (I didn’t realize they renamed the East River DENIAL)! Naturally you had to patronize me. I do not believe it is news to anyone on this site that if I am attacked I respond in kind and my blows usually land harder. So from this point on in the conversation you became a masochist and felt the need to attack me personally, even when I was conversing with Shabs. Most would call that bullying on your part, but since you can’t actually admit what you said I seriously doubt you can admit that is what you did. So if your definition of bullying is someone who hits back and successfully defends themselves when attacked, then I will plead guilty. I have grown weary of this conversation. Having a battle of wits with someone as ill-equipped as you have shown yourself to be is neither a challenge nor fun. I said before that a person who cannot admit they are wrong shows how truly small they really are, and you make Tom Thumb appear to be a Andre The Giant. So you can have the last shot as I am sure it will be just as lame as all the previous. But I am also sure you will think it to be brilliant because that’s what small minds do.