The Pissed Off Party My father-in-law e-mailed this to me. He's 87 years old, mind clear as a bell, WWII combat vet, a God-fearing man who is as radical about what's going on in this country today as I am.
For your reading pleasure...
*New Political Party.*
*Not Democrat, Not Republican, Not Independent.*
*It's called the "PISSED OFF PARTY" (or POP).*
*This party is dedicated to vote every incumbent out of office in
the next elections.*
*If you're Democrat, vote Democrat. Just don't vote for the incumbent.*
*If you're Republican, vote Republican. Just don't vote for the
incumbent.*
*We need to send a message to all politicians, that we're tired of
their B.S.*
*If the country votes out all the incumbents, the new incoming
politicians will get the message..*
*It's pretty simple. Nobody needs to change parties and lets face
it, there's plenty of blame to spread around.*
*A few good politicians will lose their job but they probably have
better retirement and insurance then 95% of the American public.*
*You've had to struggle for the last 5 years. Some of you have lost
your job and may be working in some other sector just to feed your
family.*
*I guarantee you, none of them will suffer like this country has.*
*If you like whats going on and think this is a bad idea, delete this.*
*But if you're fed up and think this is a good idea, then pass this
E-mail on.*
*If you really think this has legs, then a website and a blog could
help get the word out.*
*To All 535 voting members of the Legislature; it is now official
you are ALL corrupt morons:*
*a.. The U.S. Post Service was established in 1775. You have had
234 years to get it right and it is broke.*
*b.. Social Security was established in 1935. You have had 74 years
to get it right and it is broke.*
*c.. Fannie Mae was established in 1938. You have had 71 years to
get it right and it is broke.*
*d.. War on Poverty started in 1964. You have had 45 years to get
it right; $1 trillion of our money is confiscated each year and
transferred to "the poor" and they only want more.*
*e.. Medicare and Medicaid were established in 1965. You have had
44 years to get it right and they are broke.*
*f.. Freddie Mac was established in 1970. You have had 39 years to
get it right and it is broke.*
*g.. The Department of Energy was created in 1977 to lessen our
dependence on foreign oil. It has ballooned to 16,000 employees
with a budget of $24 billion a year and we import more oil than
ever before. You had 32 years to get it right and it is an abysmal
failure.*
*You have FAILED in every "government service" you have shoved down
our throats while overspending our tax dollars.*
*AND YOU WANT AMERICANS TO BELIEVE YOU CAN BE TRUSTED WITH A
GOVERNMENT-RUN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM? *
*IT'S NOT ABOUT THE NEED FOR GOOD HEALTH CARE, IT'S ABOUT TRUSTING
THE GOVERNMENT TO RUN IT!*
| |  |
J.J. I agree with everything on there except unfortunately I am a little dubious as to whether even dumping all of congress and starting over will do any good. I hate it that I have become so cynical but I am beginning to think the system has been so corrupted that it is almost beyond repair. Perhaps I will be proved wrong, I hope so.
By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7
I feel the same way you do, HK.Originally Posted by HK4U
I understand...I really do understand...the thing that keeps me sane is my future, which we seem to have an agreement on based on what I read from some of your other posts. Keep looking up.
Don't take freedom for granted...you could lose it.
Exactly. The one thing I do believe in is He who holds the future.
By faith Noah,being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear,prepared an ark to the saving of his house;by the which he condemned the world,and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith Heb.11:7
If the Republicans and Democrats actually dump every incumbent ( or even most of them ) in the primary elections this go-around it would amaze me. It might even persuade me that there is hope for this nation after all.
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.--River Tam
The E-Mail JJ started with has been around before in one form or another. Quite Frankly, Even if we do dump a nice number of people, there are a great number ready to hold the torch high and protect the platform mentality. Until we can get some old fashioned work ethic back into peoples heads, and trim down the "Instant Gratification" , I do not see much hope for the kids coming up. He**, What about Faith and Morality?
Semper Fi
Yes, we do have agreement on this, H. I have been convicted lately that I do not pray enough for this country. Part of the reason, I guess, is that I question what there is to pray for? This has all been ordained and will come to pass...
I rather liked Ringo's post on another thread (don't remember which one) in which he said he was excited watching the news every nite and seeing how the prophecy is being fulfilled. That's a new perspective for me; I'm gonna try it.
JJF
A proud member of the PCC (the Paranoid Christian Club; thanks to CW&M)
The way I see it, if the country votes out all the weasels who have sold out on their principals, the ones who haven't will get the message... and that is: stick to the principals you were elected on, or you're next.If the country votes out all the incumbents, the new incoming politicians will get the message..
I'm as frustrated as the next guy, maybe even more so. But I don't understand the "vote them all out" mentality. Vote damn near all of them out? Absolutely. But I don't think anyone can honestly say that all 535 members of congress suck. Now, in my particular case, Arlen Specter SUCKS, and I'm not crazy about Tim Holden (even though he is strongly opposed to Obamacare). Needless to say, I will NOT be voting for incumbents this year. But if I were a resident of SC (DeMint) or SD (Thune), I think I would be just fine with voting incumbent, as long as they continue to stick to their principals.
The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first. - Thomas Jefferson
If any of you get a chance, Mark Steyn makes a lot of sense. This article, a few books like America Alone. Definitely worth your time to read this guy.
Steyn: Obamacare worth the price to Democrats
By MARK STEYN
Syndicated columnist
So there was President Obama, giving his bazillionth speech on health care, droning yet again that "now is the hour when we must seize the moment," the same moment he's been seizing every day of the week for the past year, only this time his genius photo-op guys thought it would look good to have him surrounded by men in white coats.
Why is he doing this? Why let "health" "care" "reform" stagger on like the rotting husk in a low-grade creature feature who refuses to stay dead no matter how many stakes you pound through his chest?
President Barack Obama, center, speaks about health care reform, Wednesday, March 3, 2010. in the East Room of the White House in Washington. With him on the stage, from left are, Christopher Lillis, Dr. Renee Jenkins, Stephen Hanson, Barbara Crane, Dr. Roland Goertz, and Julie Babich.
Because it's worth it. Big time. I've been saying in this space for two years that the governmentalization of health care is the fastest way to a permanent left-of-center political culture. It redefines the relationship between the citizen and the state in fundamental ways that make limited government all but impossible. In most of the rest of the Western world, there are still nominally "conservative" parties, and they even win elections occasionally, but not to any great effect (Let's not forget that Jacques Chirac was, in French terms, a "conservative").
The result is a kind of two-party one-party state: Right-of-center parties will once in a while be in office, but never in power, merely presiding over vast left-wing bureaucracies that cruise on regardless.
Republicans seem to have difficulty grasping this basic dynamic. Less than three months ago, they were stunned at the way the Democrats managed to get 60 senators to vote for the health bill. Then Scott Brown took them back down to 59, and Republicans were again stunned to find the Dems talking about ramming this thing into law through the parliamentary device of "reconciliation." And, when polls showed an ever larger number of Americans ever more opposed to Obamacare (by margins approaching three-to-one), Republicans were further stunned to discover that, in order to advance "reconciliation," Democrat reconsiglieres had apparently been offering (illegally) various cosy Big Government sinecures to swing-state congressmen in order to induce them to climb into the cockpit for the kamikaze raid to push the bill through. The Democrats understand that politics is not just about Tuesday evenings every other November, but about everything else, too.
A year or two back, when the Canadian Islamic Congress attempted to criminalize my writing north of the border by taking me to the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission, a number of outraged American readers wrote to me, saying, "You need to start kicking up a fuss about this, Steyn, and then maybe Canadians will get mad and elect a conservative government that will end this nonsense."
Makes perfect sense. Except that Canada already has a Conservative government under a Conservative prime minister, and the very head of the "human rights" commission investigating me was herself the Conservative appointee of a Conservative minister of justice. Makes no difference.
Once the state swells to a certain size, the people available to fill the ever-expanding number of government jobs will be statists (those who believe in the "state" over the individual) – sometimes hard-core Marxist statists, sometimes social-engineering multiculti statists, sometimes fluffily "compassionate" statists, but always statists. The short history of the post-war welfare state is that you don't need a president-for-life if you've got a bureaucracy-for-life: The people can elect "conservatives," as the Germans have done and the British are about to do, and the Left is mostly relaxed about it because, in all but exceptional cases (Thatcher), they fulfill the same function in the system as the first-year boys at wintry English boarding schools who, for tuppence-ha'penny or some such, would agree to go and warm the seat in the unheated lavatories until the prefects strolled in and took their rightful place.
Republicans are good at keeping the seat warm. A bigtime GOP consultant was on TV, crowing that Republicans wanted the Dems to pass Obamacare because it's so unpopular it will guarantee a GOP sweep in November.
OK, then what? You'll roll it back – like you've rolled back all those other unsustainable entitlements premised on cobwebbed actuarial tables from 80 years ago? Like you've undone the federal Department of Education and of Energy and all the other nickel'n'dime novelties of even a universally reviled one-term loser like Jimmy Carter? Andrew McCarthy concluded a shrewd analysis of the political realities thus:
"Health care is a loser for the Left only if the Right has the steel to undo it. The Left is banking on an absence of steel. Why is that a bad bet?"
Indeed. Look at it from the Dems' point of view. You pass Obamacare. You lose the 2010 election, which gives the GOP co-ownership of an awkward couple of years. And you come back in 2012 to find your health care apparatus is still in place, a fetid behemoth of toxic pustules oozing all over the basement, and, simply through the natural processes of government, already bigger and more expensive and more bureaucratic than it was when you passed it two years earlier. That's a huge prize, and well worth a midterm timeout.
I've been bandying comparisons with Britain and France, but that hardly begins to convey the scale of it. Obamacare represents the government annexation of "one-sixth of the U.S. economy" – i.e., the equivalent of the entire British or French economy, or the entire Indian economy twice over. Nobody has ever attempted this level of centralized planning for an advanced society of 300 million people. Even the control-freaks of the European Union have never tried to impose a unitary "comprehensive" health care system from Galway to Greece. The Soviet Union did, of course, and we know how that worked out.
This "reform" is not about health care, and certainly not about "controlling costs." As with Medicare, it "controls" costs by declining to acknowledge them, or pay them. Dr. William Schreiber of North Syracuse, N.Y., told CNN that he sees 120 patients per week – about 30 percent on Medicare, 65 private on private insurance plans whose payments take into account the Medicare reimbursement rates, and about 5 percent who do it the old-fashioned way and write a check. He calculates that, under Obamacare, for every $5 he now makes, he'll get $2 in the future. Which suggests now would be a good time to retrain as a realtor or accountant, or the night clerk at the convenience store. Yet Congresswoman Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y., justifies her support for Obamacare this way:
"I even had one constituent – you will not believe this, and I know you won't, but it's true – her sister died. This poor woman had no dentures. She wore her dead sister's teeth."
Is the problem of second-hand teeth a particular problem in this corner of New York? I haven't noticed an epidemic of ill-fitting dentures on recent visits to the Empire State. George Washington had wooden teeth, but, presumably, these days the Sierra Club would object to the clear-cutting. Yet, even granting Congresswoman Slaughter the benefit of the doubt, is annexing the equivalent of a G7 economy the solution to what would seem to be the statistically unrepresentative problem of her constituent's ill-fitting choppers? Is it worth reducing the next generation of Americans to indentured servitude to pay for this poor New Yorker's dentured servitude?
Yes. Because government health care is not about health care, it's about government. Once you look at it that way, what the Dems are doing makes perfect sense. For them.
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
