The typical argument for ObamaCare is that it will offer better medical care for everyone and cost less to do it, but occasionally a supporter lets the mask slip and reveals the real political motivation. So let's give credit to John Cassidy, part of the left-wing stable at the New Yorker, who wrote last week on its Web site that "it's important to be clear about what the reform amounts to."
Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."
Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.
This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."
Senate Democrats are attempting to pass legislation which will give President Obama the authority to shut down the Internet and seize private networks.
On CNET News, Lee Tien, a senior staff attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), stated, As soon as you're saying that the federal government is going to be exercising this kind of power over private networks, its going to be a really big issue.
The bill, misleadingly titled The Cybersecurity Act of 2009 allows Obama to declare an emergency based upon no hard criteria. Once he declares this emergency, he can effectively shut down free speech on the Internet.
Jay Rockefeller, the bills sponsor, said I know the threats we face. Our enemies are real. They are sophisticated, they are determined and they will not rest. Unfortunately, it looks like the threat which Jay is most worried about is free speech from Americans who do not approve of Obama's plans to impose national socialism upon the citizens of the United States.
In addition, the bill will require government licenses of any individual who seeks employment as a gcybersecurity professionalh, effectively giving the Democratic party authority to prevent their political opponents from being involved in protecting either government or private networks from attack.
As the suicidal Democratic congressmen proceed to rubber-stamp the Obama healthcare reform despite the drubbing their party took in the '09 elections, the president trotted out the endorsements of the AMA and the AARP to stimulate support. But these -- and the other endorsements -- his package has received are all bought and paid for.
Here are the deals:
* The American Medical Association (AMA) was facing a 21 percent cut in physicians' reimbursements under the current law. Obama promised to kill the cut if they backed his bill. The cuts are the fruit of a law requiring annual 5-6 percent reductions in doctor reimbursements for treating Medicare patients. Bravely, each year Congress has rolled the cuts over, suspending them but not repealing them. So each year, the accumulated cuts threaten doctors. By now, they have risen to 21 percent. With this blackmail leverage, Obama compelled the AMA to support his bill...or else!
* The AARP got a financial windfall in return for its support of the healthcare bill. Over the past decade, the AARP has morphed from an advocacy group to an insurance company (through its subsidiary company). It is one of the main suppliers of Medi-gap insurance, a high-cost, privately purchased coverage that picks up where Medicare leaves off. But President Bush-43 passed the Medicare Advantage program, which offered a subsidized, lower-cost alternative to Medi-gap. Under Medicare Advantage, the elderly get all the extra coverage they need plus coordinated, well-managed care, usually by the same physician. So more than 10 million seniors went with Medicare Advantage, cutting into AARP Medi-gap revenues.
Presto! Obama solved their problem. He eliminates subsidies for Medicare Advantage. The elderly will have to pay more for coverage under Medigap, but the AARP -- which supposedly represents them -- will make more money. (If this galls you, join the American Seniors Association, the alternative group; contact sbarton@americanseniors.org This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .)
* The drug industry backed ObamaCare and, in return, got a 10-year limit of $80 billion on cuts in prescription drug costs. (A drop in the bucket of their almost $3 trillion projected cost over the next decade.) They also got administration assurances that it will continue to bar lower-cost Canadian drugs from coming into the U.S. All it had to do was put its formidable advertising budget at the disposal of the administration.
* Insurance companies got access to 40 million potential new customers. But when the Senate Finance Committee lowered the fine that would be imposed on those who don't buy insurance from $3,500 to $1,500, the insurance companies jumped ship and now oppose the bill, albeit for the worst of motives.
The only industry that refused to knuckle under was the medical device makers. They stood for principle and wouldn't go along with Obama's blackmail. So the Senate Finance Committee retaliated by imposing a tax on medical devices such as automated wheelchairs, pacemakers, arterial stents, prosthetic limbs, artificial knees and hips and other necessary accoutrements of healthcare.
So these endorsements are not freely given, but bought and paid for by an administration that is intent on passing its program at any cost.
Mr. Cassidy is more honest than the politicians whose dishonesty he supports. "The U.S. government is making a costly and open-ended commitment," he writes. "Let's not pretend that it isn't a big deal, or that it will be self-financing, or that it will work out exactly as planned. It won't. What is really unfolding, I suspect, is the scenario that many conservatives feared. The Obama Administration . . . is creating a new entitlement program, which, once established, will be virtually impossible to rescind."
Why are they doing it? Because, according to Mr. Cassidy, ObamaCare serves the twin goals of "making the United States a more equitable country" and furthering the Democrats' "political calculus." In other words, the purpose is to further redistribute income by putting health care further under government control, and in the process making the middle class more dependent on government. As the party of government, Democrats will benefit over the long run.
This explains why Nancy Pelosi is willing to risk the seats of so many Blue Dog Democrats by forcing such an unpopular bill through Congress on a narrow, partisan vote: You have to break a few eggs to make a permanent welfare state. As Mr. Cassidy concludes, "Putting on my amateur historian's cap, I might even claim that some subterfuge is historically necessary to get great reforms enacted."
No wonder many Americans are upset. They know they are being lied to about ObamaCare, and they know they are going to be stuck with the bill.
Sec. 202 (p. 91-92) of the bill requires you to enroll in a "qualified plan." If you get your insurance at work, your employer will have a "grace period" to switch you to a "qualified plan," meaning a plan designed by the Secretary of Health and Human Services. If you buy your own insurance, there's no grace period. You'll have to enroll in a qualified plan as soon as any term in your contract changes, such as the co-pay, deductible or benefit.
Sec. 224 (p. 118) provides that 18 months after the bill becomes law, the Secretary of Health and Human Services will decide what a "qualified plan" covers and how much you'll be legally required to pay for it. That's like a banker telling you to sign the loan agreement now, then filling in the interest rate and repayment terms 18 months later.
On Nov. 2, the Congressional Budget Office estimated what the plans will likely cost. An individual earning $44,000 before taxes who purchases his own insurance will have to pay a $5,300 premium and an estimated $2,000 in out-of-pocket expenses, for a total of $7,300 a year, which is 17% of his pre-tax income. A family earning $102,100 a year before taxes will have to pay a $15,000 premium plus an estimated $5,300 out-of-pocket, for a $20,300 total, or 20% of its pre-tax income. Individuals and families earning less than these amounts will be eligible for subsidies paid directly to their insurer.
Sec. 303 (pp. 167-168) makes it clear that, although the "qualified plan" is not yet designed, it will be of the "one size fits all" variety. The bill claims to offer choicebasic, enhanced and premium levelsbut the benefits are the same. Only the co-pays and deductibles differ. You will have to enroll in the same plan, whether the government is paying for it or you and your employer are footing the bill.
Sec. 59b (pp. 297-299) says that when you file your taxes, you must include proof that you are in a qualified plan. If not, you will be fined thousands of dollars. Illegal immigrants are exempt from this requirement.
Sec. 412 (p. 272) says that employers must provide a "qualified plan" for their employees and pay 72.5% of the cost, and a smaller share of family coverage, or incur an 8% payroll tax. Small businesses, with payrolls from $500,000 to $750,000, are fined less.
Eviscerating Medicare:
In addition to reducing future Medicare funding by an estimated $500 billion, the bill fundamentally changes how Medicare pays doctors and hospitals, permitting the government to dictate treatment decisions.
Sec. 1302 (pp. 672-692) moves Medicare from a fee-for-service payment system, in which patients choose which doctors to see and doctors are paid for each service they provide, toward what's called a "medical home."
The medical home is this decade's version of HMO-restrictions on care. A primary-care provider manages access to costly specialists and diagnostic tests for a flat monthly fee. The bill specifies that patients may have to settle for a nurse practitioner rather than a physician as the primary-care provider. Medical homes begin with demonstration projects, but the HHS secretary is authorized to "disseminate this approach rapidly on a national basis."
A December 2008 Congressional Budget Office report noted that "medical homes" were likely to resemble the unpopular gatekeepers of 20 years ago if cost control was a priority.
Sec. 1114 (pp. 391-393) replaces physicians with physician assistants in overseeing care for hospice patients.
Secs. 1158-1160 (pp. 499-520) initiates programs to reduce payments for patient care to what it costs in the lowest cost regions of the country. This will reduce payments for care (and by implication the standard of care) for hospital patients in higher cost areas such as New York and Florida.
Sec. 1161 (pp. 520-545) cuts payments to Medicare Advantage plans (used by 20% of seniors). Advantage plans have warned this will result in reductions in optional benefits such as vision and dental care.
Sec. 1402 (p. 756) says that the results of comparative effectiveness research conducted by the government will be delivered to doctors electronically to guide their use of "medical items and services."
Questionable Priorities:
While the bill will slash Medicare funding, it will also direct billions of dollars to numerous inner-city social work and diversity programs with vague standards of accountability.
Sec. 399V (p. 1422) provides for grants to community "entities" with no required qualifications except having "documented community activity and experience with community healthcare workers" to "educate, guide, and provide experiential learning opportunities" aimed at drug abuse, poor nutrition, smoking and obesity. "Each community health worker program receiving funds under the grant will provide services in the cultural context most appropriate for the individual served by the program."
These programs will "enhance the capacity of individuals to utilize health services and health related social services under Federal, State and local programs by assisting individuals in establishing eligibility . . . and in receiving services and other benefits" including transportation and translation services.
Sec. 222 (p. 617) provides reimbursement for culturally and linguistically appropriate services. This program will train health-care workers to inform Medicare beneficiaries of their "right" to have an interpreter at all times and with no co-pays for language services.
Secs. 2521 and 2533 (pp. 1379 and 1437) establishes racial and ethnic preferences in awarding grants for training nurses and creating secondary-school health science programs. For example, grants for nursing schools should "give preference to programs that provide for improving the diversity of new nurse graduates to reflect changes in the demographics of the patient population." And secondary-school grants should go to schools "graduating students from disadvantaged backgrounds including racial and ethnic minorities."
Sec. 305 (p. 189) Provides for automatic Medicaid enrollment of newborns who do not otherwise have insurance.
For the text of the bill with page numbers, see www.defendyourhealthcare.us.
"Nazi" was gutter slang for the verb "to nationalize" Hmmm............
Below is a history lessen that everyone should read.
"Nazi" was gutter slang for the verb "to nationalize"
Ernest Hancock
Website: www.ernesthancock.com
Subject: Philosophy: Fascism
On June 7, 1995, the Washington Times printed a letter to the editor from a man named Thomas Colton Ruthford in which he described the Nazis and how Hitler came to power and then abused that power. In light of current events, this letter could be quite chilling. There are those who say that "Those who will not learn from history are doomed to repeat it," but I would like to modify that and say that, "The only lesson we learn from history is that we don't learn from history."
Gary
******************************
Letter to the Editor
Arlington, Washington Times
During the past several months in the American press, the Democrats have frequently denounced the Republicans as Nazis due to their attempts to control runaway federal spending. How very ironic. I remember the Nazis. Let me share a little about them and recall some of their exploits.
First of all, "Nazi" was gutter slang for the verb "to nationalize". The Bider-Mienhoff gang gave themselves this moniker during their early struggles. The official title of the Nazi Party was "The National Socialist Workers Party of Germany". Hitler and the Brownshirts advocated the nationalization of education, health care, transportation, national resources, manufacturing, distribution and law enforcement.
Hitler came to power by turning the working class, unemployed, and academic elite against the conservative republic. After der fuhrer's election ceased being a political conspiracy and was transformed into a fashionable social phenomenon, party membership was especially popular with educators, bureaucrats, and the press. Being a Nazi was politically correct. They called themselves "The Children of the New Age of World Order" and looked down their noses at everyone else. As Hitler accrued more power, he referred to his critics as "The Dark Forces of Anarchy and Hatred". Anyone who questioned Nazi high-handedness in the German press was branded a "Conservative Reactionary". Joseph Goebbels, minister of communications, proclaimed a "New World Order".
The Nazi reign of terror began with false news reports on the Jews, Bohemians and Gypses who were said to be arming themselves to overthrow the "New World Order" and Hitler demanded that all good people register their guns so that they wouldn't fall into the hands of "terrorists and madmen". Right wing fanatics of the "Old Order" who protested firearms registration were arrested by the S.S. and put in jail for "fomenting hatred against the Government of the German people".
Then the Reichstag (government building) was blown up and Hitler ram-rodded an "Emergency Anti-Terrorist Act" through Parliament that gave the Gestapo extraordinary powers. The leader then declared that for the well-being of the German people, all private firearms were to be confiscated by the Gestapo and the Wermotten (federal law enforcement and military). German citizens who refused to surrender their guns when the "jack-boots" (Gestapo) came calling, were murdered in their homes. By the way, the Gestapo were the federal marshals' service of the Third Reich. The S.W.A.T. team was invented and perfected by the Gestapo to break into the homes of the enemies of the German people.
When the Policia Bewakken, or local police, refused to take away guns from townsfolk, they themselves were disarmed and dragged out into the street and shot to death by the S.A. and the S.S. Those were Nazi versions of the B.A.T.F. and the F.B.I. When several local ministers spoke out against these atrocities, they were imprisoned and never seen again.
The Gestapo began to confiscate and seize the homes, businesses, bank accounts, and personal belongings of wealthy conservative citizens who had prospered in the old Republic. Pamphleteers who urged revolt against the Nazis were shot on site by national law enforcement and the military. Gypsies and Jews were detained and sent to labor camps. Mountain roads throughout central Europe were closed to prevent the escape of fugitives into the wilderness, and to prevent the movement and concealment of partisan resistance fighters.
Public schools rewrote history and Hitler youth groups taught the children to report their parents to their teachers for anti-Nazi remarks. Such parents disappeared. Pagan animism became the state religion of the Third Reich and Christians were widely condemned as "right wing fanatics".
Millions of books were burned first and then people. Millions of them burned in huge ovens after they were first gassed to death. Unmarried women were paid large sums of money to have babies out of wedlock and then given medals for it. Evil was declared as being good, and good was condemned as being evil. World Order was coming and the German people were going to be the "peacekeepers".
Yes, indeed, I remember the Nazis and they weren't Republicans, or "right wing", or "patriots" or "militias". They were Socialist monsters.
Thomas Colton Ruthford
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
My reply:
You keep repeating the same old tired lines about anyone who doesn't suck Obama's dick like you. You accuse them of being swiftboat shills but you have never been able to disprove anything they say. How does it feel to be the Democrat whore version of Rush Limbaugh?
I wish you and many others, would step back and look at all the little puzzle pieces and try real hard to put them together. It might surprise you to learn your government, a swath of the private sector, and indeed, the school systems have been infiltrated from top to bottom.
And fact is, gasoline taxes only pay about 32% of the state road budget. (And registration/inspection/etc. pay significantly less.) Citation from the TxDOT. The rest comes mostly from sales tax and property taxes. So sorry, but the cyclists pay a lot more than `squat'. Everybody pays, even if they don't own a car or a bike. It's time to get off your high tax horse.
Third, I was attempting to offer up some kind of workable solution, not trying to start up some dipshit flame war about who pays what taxes and blah blah. And I DO own a car, and I DO pay taxes on it.
Fact is, bikers exist and will continue to exist. We can't be on the side walk due to city laws. So there needs to be more bike lanes and people have to be restricted from parking cars in them.
But the militant bikers really yank my chain. BFD if you bike to work. I move construction machinery around and have a big truck, so try pulling that with a bike. Doesn't mean I have ever come close to a bicylist, but I am a bit annoyed when bicyclists choose to weave in and out of traffic to jam me up. Fact is, bicyclists should have to wait in traffic like the rest of us....you can't play it both ways.
It saddens me you do not ride for recreation... EVER. Bikes are sort of meant to be fun little unnecessary modes of transportation in the modern world, at least in my mind, when you consider how little they can feasibly provide mass transportation in a modern technological world.
Get off the city streets, go explore nature a bit, maybe see beyond your own little limited commute where you hold up motorists.
Removing bikes would not stop traffic jams nor violent situations but it would most certainly lower them.
I can't think how taxing bicyclists would cost more to maintain than it would bring in. We already have the same system for cars. We'd make smaller license plate and registration and inspection stickers and it would be done.
Since so many of you biker weenies are content to stick with the system we have and annoy the fuck out of drivers, doesn't it make sense for drivers to vow to keep on honking at you to startle you, slam on their brakes near you to frighten the fuck out of you,and just in general try to make your commute a living hell like you are doing to us?
Most cyclists who ride on city streets do so not to get to work or for any viable purpose other than recreation. Find a park or veloway.
think of your fellow man for a change instead of how you can hinder them by interrupting his car commute.
And, by the way, I may not be as scrawny as you but my body fat is undoubtedly lower and I'd pound your face in if we met face to face; I'm 5' 11", weight 212 and have around six percent body fat which makes me UFC looking mo fo who'd eat your lunch.
Special needs trike rider wrote:
The roads exist for EVERYONE's transportation needs, regardless of whether you're in a car, scooter, bicycle, city bus, etc. Nothing gives cars special rights to the road and I will continue to ride in the traffic lane on the road on my bicycle as the law states.
And it doesn't matter that most cyclists own cars -- cyclists are legal on the road if they own a car or if they don't. But it was presented as yet another way that your argument is divorced from reality.
And you ignored most of my argument about riding a bike in the middle of the lane -- yes, it's legal, but it's also the safest place to be. It also usually gets us to our destination faster. Win win! So we're going to keep riding there, and you can keep fuming about it and arguing that we don't pay our way.
I do like your suggestion that removing bikes from streets would stop traffic jams and terse/tense/often violent situations, however. You're funny!
It sounds far more realistic to make bicyclists at a minimum pay the $60 or so that vehicle drivers pay every year for the privilege of riding on city streets. Well, it's even more realistic to realize that 1) they don't have to pay this fee, and yet 2) they're already entitled to the right to ride on city streets. But by all means, hit up City Council and suggest that they require that cyclists pay such a fee. Good luck with that!
Also, so what if bikers driving 20 mph in the middle of a lane is legal? It's annoying, it interrupts car traffic, creates traffic jams and leads to terse/tense/often violent situations. Simply removing bikes from streets would solve this. Makes as much sense as any of the other moronic ideas like adding bike lanes, converting entire streets to bike only, etc.and, guess what, outlawing bikes on streets COSTS NO MONEY unlike every other proposal you biker weenies want.
It sounds far more realistic to make bicyclists at a minimum pay the $60 or so that vehicle drivers pay every year for the privilege of riding on city streets.
During your interview, stress that you're a team player but that you're fully capable of working independently and without much supervision. Let them know if you don't know the answer to the problem, you'll know who to ask, and so on.
Dress professionally or "professional casual".
Don't be afraid to add a little (A LITTLE) humor--we want to know you have a personality and that you're not an automaton.
If you're used to being micromanaged, learn how to work independently (frankly older management is getting tired of the "trophy for showing up" mentality, color coding everything in the office/facility, and so on). This micromanagement bit is very tiring and truly professional employers don't want to have to micromanage an adult.
Realize 1) no one wants to hear your political views at this stage of the game, and 2) it's not a "democracy" -- it's a business, therefore you must do what your employer asks you to do.
However, it is unrealistic for any company, especially a small one with limited staff, to respond to every applicant. If for no other reason, it makes the company no money and, in fact, costs the company in time, envelopes/postage, e-mail replies, etc.
I will tell you this, though, I often wish every single person who has been a jobhunter could also either be in HR or a hiring person just for one day and see the lousy applicants that show up to interview and/or send in resumes, if you could call them that.
Many don't shower or shave, many use profanity in interviews, present illegible handwritten or dirty, greasy resumes with massive typoes, etc. are the norm.
All I and most employers ask is for you to shower, shave, have on clean clothes (preferably with a shirt with a collar), smile, be positive and polite. Having experience is a good thing but it's not everything.
But you seem unaware of where the money from these things actually go. Gasoline taxes? Constitutionally dedicated to the state highway system (and schools). This means it can't be spent on *any* roadway without a route shield (number) on it. So I-35, 183, 2222, etc. -- OK. But it can't be spent on the smaller roads where cyclists spend 99% of their time.
Registration fees? Most of that goes towards collecting registration fees, but the rest goes to the state and county governments -- who don't spend any of their monies on roads within city limits -- you know, those roads that cyclists ride on the most?
Inspection fees? Now you're really stretching. Most of that's kept by the people performing the inspection, as it should be. Auto inspection is about emissions and safety, not really revenue generation. Are you going to start talking about the money you pay your mechanic next?
Ultimately, the gasoline taxes pay 32% of the current state road budget, and the other taxes/fees pay far less. Most of the budget comes from sales taxes and property taxes -- which cyclists certainly do pay. And never mind that most cyclists own cars as well.
And bicycles do next to zero damage to the road. We can't say the same for motor vehicles. (But to be fair, big trucks do far more damage to the road than passenger cars and light trucks.)
2. And motorists speed, run stop signs, etc. What's your point? As for cyclists taking the entire lane at 20 mph -- well, that's 1) usually legal and 2) often the safest place to ride. Motorists look for other cars -- not so much for bikes. So if a bike is ridden where cars go, motorists are far more likely to see them. The sidewalks are the most dangerous place to ride -- not only due to pedestrians and such, but mostly because motorists don't look for cyclists there, and cut them off on a very regular basis. Next to the gutter is also very dangerous, as motorists 1) don't look there and 2) when they do see the cyclist, they underestimate their speed (or forget they're there) and cut them off on a regular basis. And the road is full of debris there, so cyclists get far more flats there -- which can be dangerous.
3. The vast majority of bikes have serial numbers. The police do keep track of serial numbers, and they're probably the #1 way that police do get stolen bikes back to their owners. As for if it should be high on their list of priorities, I'll let the police decide how to do their job.
4. Again, cyclists pay their way. And many cyclists can fit into the space taken up by a single car on the road. I don't necessarily agree with with the other poster (you dubbed him/her `Skinny Cheryl in her neon bike tights'? Sounds hot!) that we need to dedicate two full lanes to bikes in many places here in town, but if there's enough bike traffic in one area it might make sense.
My S/O has applied to literally hundreds of jobs over the last year and a half and it is mind boggling to count the number of employers who haven't a moment, to, as you put it, respond in one way or another. He goes through all of the online bullshit, sends a follow up letter and if it is something he seriously wants, he'll eventually find out the name of the person in charge of hiring and get in touch with them personally. The flip side of the coin, on more than one occassion he's been the victim of age discrimination, totally impossible to prove, but we've seen it a several times, he gets to the second or third interview then gets the rejection letter or call, subsequent follow up in every case has shown that it was someone several years his junior who got the job. Nothing against young people mind you, we all have to work, but it's a slap in the face for the honest, hardworking people of this country who've put in their time and are now getting the big bananna.
This is the new world of job hunting, it sucks, employers are swamped with applications and they are being picky as they please. You must seriously ask yourself if you would even want to work in a company that doesn't have the common decency (though common decency is not so common anymore) to respond to your solicitations. If they fuck up from the get go, how much worse would it be to actually have to work for them?
Good luck not losing your mind until you find a job!!!!!!!
I know every single person that's applied for a job on Craigslist feels this way, but seriously people: If I take the time to write you a fucking letter, send my resume, links to my work, etc - then the very least your sorry ass can do is write me back and tell me you fucking received it. How goddamned hard is this?
I don't expect to get every job I apply for, but I want some sort of indication, some sort of validation, some sort of representation that your moronic ass has actually opened my fucking email, looked at what I had to say, and actually considered me for a position in your shitty little company.
Oh, and if you've filled your position, take your fucking ad off of Craigslist or set up an Auto-Replier (which takes all of 5 goddamned minutes to do) to let me know "Hey dumbass, we've already filled this job with someone less qualified since we took the first dipshit applicant who applied. Thanks for wasting your time!"
In the last week, I've applied for 30+ positions from this website. I've received ZERO emails back confirming anyone received my emails. Can you imagine how mind-numbing this is? Have some fucking courtesy. We take the time to write you, reply to you, apply to you, have the courtesy to treat us like human beings and let us know you're not interested or going in a different direction. I don't care how many fucking emails you get a day - get a green intern from UT to answer the emails.
So guys like you should get run over, spat on, and threatened with their lives by some guy driving a cement mixer. I mean, compare what your little vehicle pays compared to a 18-wheeler. If this is simply about what I pay (and I pay income taxes and gas taxes and toll fees, while my little bike tires put virtually zero wear on the pavement) then everyone should just shut their mouth and let the big vehicles play, right?
"2. Many bikers ask to have their asses handed to them on a platter."
Yes, you are right there. The fix, though, isn't to put cyclists on your personal hit list, but rather, to go bug the local cops until they do something. Then again, this is a place where prostitution and 420 smoking and being here illegally don't seem to interest the cops, so good luck w /that one. I am both a motorist as well as a cyclist, and yes, I get pissed when cyclists (specially the Lance Armstrong wannabes) blow through stop lights, etc.
"3. Ah, yes, expecting the police to recover a stolen bike that likely has no registration number and most certainly does not have a license plate."
Yes, they all have numbers, and in many places, they do have "plates". Austin might not have a bike license law, but many places do. However, my stolen bike was on its way to Mexico within hours, probably so the illegals would have a way to cross over this way.
"4. Our streets are already overcrowded as it is and you want the (snip)"
Not if everyone rode a bike. But you are right, Parmer et al should've been built w/ bike lanes or bike paths when this part of the city was built. Strangely, it is the older parts of Austin w/ the bike lanes and bike paths. Go figure.
And for the record, I flip off motorists. I yell at them too. And since my cell phone has a video recorder now, that has opened up a whole new realm of ways to take revenge.
Oh, and if you've filled your position, take your fucking ad off of Craigslist or set up an Auto-Replier (which takes all of 5 goddamned minutes to do) to let me know "Hey dumbass, we've already filled this job with someone less qualified since we took the first dipshit applicant who applied. Thanks for wasting your time!"
In the last week, I've applied for 30+ positions from this website. I've received ZERO emails back confirming anyone received my emails. Can you imagine how mind-numbing this is? Have some fucking courtesy. We take the time to write you, reply to you, apply to you, have the courtesy to treat us like human beings and let us know you're not interested or going in a different direction. I don't care how many fucking emails you get a day - get a green intern from UT to answer the emails.
Let me take a moment to define what a Kike is; It's a term used for illiterate immigrant Jews from the early part of the 20th century. Any idiot could look that up. Maybe that is why you are such a dumb ass though. Here is a good question for you; how does a bunch of illiterate immigrant Jews wind up running our country? If we are stupid immigrants and we run a country of millions of people, what does that make us? What does that say about the people that let the kikes take over?
You see that is what makes you worse than a Kike. You would rather sit around and blame other people for your problems than accepting where you are and who you are and trying to make things better. "I can't get a job because the fucking kikes are running this country" , or " Our economy is so bad because the fucking kikes are running this country". Here is a great question for you; If the Kikes really are running this country, and the Jews run all the media, and have all the money, why the fuck are you still alive? We would have killed your igonorant ass a long time ago just for being ugly, white, and stupid!
Now bend over, pull your head out of your ass, and see what life is really like without a pair of shit spectacles on!
Sheriff Joe, known around the country as Americas Toughest Sheriff, can no longer arrest people he suspects to be illegal immigrants based solely on their immigration status. To me, this makes no sense its like not being able to arrest a bank robber based solely on whether or not he or she has robbed a bank.
I see no reason why he shouldnt be able to arrest illegal immigrants and place them in Tent City. I think we all know what happens when the federal government has total control of immigration: The illegal immigrants get caught, and then they get a nice trip in a bus back home to Mexico where theyll no doubt try to illegally cross the border again.
If they didnt feel like going through the naturalization process the first time, logic tells us they wont hesitate to try again if there is little to no risk.
As Sheriff Joe said in one of many notable interviews with The Washington Times, My message is clear: If you come here and I catch you, youre going straight to jail. Im not going to turn these people over to the federal authorities so they can have a free ride back to Mexico. Ill give them a free ride to my jail.
Xavier Rios, an assistant chief Border Patrol agent in Washington, also commented on the lack of consequences brought upon illegal immigrants by saying, The majority are offered and granted voluntary removal back to Mexico.
What kind of message is it when we simply return them to Mexico?
CBS News reported only two years ago on records that proved the majority previously mentioned by Rios accounted for 98 percent of all illegal immigrants caught.
Its basically as if I were to try to rob a bank, and after doing so unsuccessfully, the bank just gives me a ride back to my house. If that were the case, who wouldnt rob banks?
I know, I know trying to find a better life in a different country is a lot different than robbing a bank, but in essence, its the same idea.
How are the citizens of the United States supposed to believe illegal immigrants are going to follow the laws of our country when they didnt even follow the first one when they crossed the border without any permission?
At such a crucial time in our history with the recession, were a long way away from being able to offer up jobs for immigrants, let alone anybody at all.
When were in a surplus again and we have more job openings than people with which to fill them, I invite every hard-working immigrant who wants a better life for themselves and their families to come into the country legally. But now, during this time period with such high unemployment rates, we need to be as strict as ever in fighting illegal immigration.
The federal government needs to recognize that the people of Arizona
have voted for Sheriff Joe in five successive terms.
It needs to respect that we have decided the methods by which Arpaio and his staff operate are OK with us, just as the 10th Amendment promises.
Sheriff Joe is doing something right, and Im happy that he has claimed he will continue to pursue illegal immigrants despite the Department of Homeland Securitys actions against him. It shows that hes a leader and that hes not afraid to protect a county of people even if the burden will fall on his own shoulders.
But even so, the federal government and the Department of Homeland Security need to formally return his powers to him so that he can do his job in peace.
2. Many bikers ask to have their asses handed to them on a platter. Why? Well, they run stop signs, weave in and out of traffic and purposefully ride in a lane at less than twenty miles an hour when vehicles are stuck behind them doing twenty and, if there is another lane, cars are roaring by them doing thirty plus. Either ride on the sidewalk, or, if you feel compelled to ride in the street, stay as far right as you can. Riding in the middle or far left of your lane when people are passing you on the left is insanity at best.
3. Ah, yes, expecting the police to recover a stolen bike that likely has no registration number and most certainly does not have a license plate. These sorts of thefts should be very high on the priority list of police... NOT!
4. Our streets are already overcrowded as it is and you want the City just to hand two streets over to be strictly for bicyclists when cyclists don't even pay taxes to maintain those roads? What a free-loading crock of shit.
Skinny Cheryl in her neon bike tights wrote:
You deserved to be flipped off, as does every other driver that nearly hits or kills a biker everyday. During rush hour, I'm forced onto the sidewalk while biking home on 360 crossing 183, and it never fails - I'm almost hit nearly every day. I'm completely non-aggressive about biking around cars for obvious reasons, but without fail, I'll be in the cross-walk and almost hit by a car making a turn. People are in such a hurry in their 2 ton vehicles they don't even look where they're driving. And then it's the biker's fault if there's an accident! I'm basically a pedestrian. I don't have a couple tons of metal wrapped around me, so the onus isn't on me to ensure car owners drive safely.
There are plenty of bikers that ignore traffic rules, just like there are plenty of car drivers that do as well. Police give bikers tickets for running red lights, at the same rate as if they were in a car. So we're regulated and ticketed like a car. Yet if our bike is stolen (which happens very often) or if someone is parked in a designated bike lane, the police do nothing. Literally, I had a $1200 bike stolen a month ago, and there was nothing done. Not only are drivers working against bikers, but the rules and police are too. So just suck it up and at least drive safely.