SUNDAY RESPITE-You Are Worthy-The Mount Paran Choir & Orchestra

PRESIDENT BO APOLOGIZES FOR SOMETHING. BUT NOT WHAT YOU MAY THINK

For those liberals who can't really understand English because they keep changing words' meanings, I present the following translation.

"I'm sorry that what we 'intended' to do didn't happen because we are so incompetent."

"I'm sorry that we, the most articulate, smartest, Constitutionally savvy, suave, sophisticated, intellectually astute people ever to hold office, couldn't find the words to properly express ourselves before thrusting this abysmal plan on the nation."

"I'm sorry people find themselves in these terrible situations based on assurances they got from me. They really should have known better. It's their fault."

"I'm sorry we have to work hard to make sure 'they' know we hear them, even though we don't really want to hear them. They make us very nervous."

"I'm sorry we're going to have to do everything we can to deal with folks who find themselves in a tough position because of the fact that we wanted them in a tough enough position that they would have to enroll in our 'exchanges', even though they were happy with what they had and thought they were going to get to keep what they had."

"I'm sorry that the fact that the plans we offer are so much better than the ones they had that they have to have premiums 40%-80% higher than the premiums for the plans they actually wanted to keep."

"I'm sorry that millions of people are going to loose their health care coverage so that millions can have health care coverage. I sure hope they don't discover that the whole thing will be a net wash in terms of numbers of people  covered. If they do discover it, I'll be sorry for that, too. I promise. And you know how I keep my promises."

"I'm sorry that everybody didn't get moved into better plans because they want them, as opposed to being forced into them by us, which is what we really wanted to do."

"I'm sorry you found out that I said you could keep your health care plan if you like your health care plan, when I knew I was lying about it."

"I'm sorry you heard me say that I never really said you could keep your health care plan if you like your health care plan but said it was tied to whether or not insurance companies made any changes to your plans."

"I'm sorry we were hijacked by a website. Even though it was our web site, designed and developed by our people, we didn't mean for you to find out that we knew all along that it was not ready for release."

"I'm sorry you are hearing me now trying to make you think I'm sorry I misled you, even though I'm really saying I'm sorry you didn't hear the stealth words I meant that were never once included in my original promise."

"I'm sorry you don't like me for lying. I really, really need you to like me. I'm worth liking, you know."

"I'm a sorry bunch of trash and lies, but I'm sorry you have discovered that, and if you haven't I hope you don't. If you don't you're probably a liberal."

I DIDN'T SAY WHAT YOU SAID I SAID WHEN I SAID WHAT I SAID

Is that related to the following?:

Clever with Words

I was wrong once last year. (Does that surprise you?) How do you understand the statement? If you are a liberal, you think I said I was wrong ONLY once last year. That is not what I said. I was wrong more than 50 times last year, but “50” includes one. So I WAS wrong once last. Not ONLY once, but I was wrong once. Liberals treat words that way. They hide behind “secret” meanings and half-truths. Remember, a half-truth is a complete lie. Kathleen Sibelius told Congress that there was no data to support the idea that business has been adversely affected by ObamaCare. She did not say that businesses were NOT adversely affected, only that there is no data to support the idea. THAT does not mean businesses were not affected adversely by ObamaCare, only that the government either does not have or has suppressed data about the issue. Because they already know the answer, and it would make them look worse, the government is not likely to start releasing data about businesses adversely affected by ObamaCare. Or, if they do, they will either not release the data or will deliberately skew it for their benefit. Sibelius is the one who testified to Congress under oath that they did not know how many had enrolled in ObamaCare via the famously defective website. She said she would not have the figures until the middle of November. She said it over and over again. (At the risk of embarrassing myself, I know how many people view and/or comment on my blog site every single day!) Then someone leaked the documents. Surprise! We discover that she knew all along. In fact, we know that she deliberately lied to Congress. (It won’t mean anything, though, because she is immune to Congress.) What we found out is that on the first day a mad rush to the website resulted in 6 people being registered. I wouldn’t have admitted that either, if I were Sibelius. Liberals play games with other words, too. If they don’t like a particular social tradition, they just change the descriptive words. For 81/2 billion years, “marriage” meant the legal and spiritual union of a man and a woman. Liberals did not like that tradition, so they just changed the meaning of the word so it now includes gays, transvestites and sand fleas. Y’all think this post is about ObamaCare and marriage, but it’s not. It’s about how liberals think (or rather don’t think). Evasiveness, distraction, misdirection, deflection and half-truths are their favorite methods of discussion (as well as testifying before Congress).

SUNDAY RESPITE-Walk On-The Issacs

THAT WEB SITE STUFF IS HARD! YOU ALMOST HAVE TO BE A PROFESSIONAL OR SOMETHING

Written in 2003 by ONE person, Face Mash (Face Book’s predecessor), written by Mark Zuckerberg, was rolled out in February of 2004 (one year later-for you liberals). The first day it successfully attracted 450 students (from a population of a few thousand students – the only ones allowed on). By the time it became Face Book, it had cost $13 Million USD. That’s all. Just $13 Million dollars.

Three years and nine months after it became law, ObamaCare’s registration  website was rolled out with national, yea, even international fanfare. It cost at least $88 Million USD (the amount already paid to developer CGI – a Canadian firm) and some estimates run as high as $600 Million USD!

On its first day of operation, the ObamaCare web site managed to sign up 6 people from a population of 300,000,000 people. DID YOU GET THAT! 6 PEOPLE!!

By the second day, there were 100 enrollees and by October 3rd, there were 248. DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Two hundred forty eight people enrolled. Not two hundred forty eight thousand or two hundred forty eight hundred, TWO HUNDRED FORTY EIGHT PEOPLE ENROLLED!

No wonder Kathleen Sibelius balked at revealing to Congress how many had signed up. It was NOT that she didn't know (although she said she would no know until mid-November). It was that she did not want anybody to know how colossal a failure its roll out had been. She admitted to its having had “problems,” but would not give the actual numbers.

Now documents have been obtained that show the actual numbers.

And it STILL doesn't work right.

But that’s OK. President BO (the amateur president) is now going to employ the “brightest and best” people from, of all places, Verizon (Can you hear me now?). Please explain why he spent between $88 Million and $600 Million on folks who were not the “brightest and best!”

I’ll bet you liberals will STILL defend it. I’ll bet you think this is normal for a new site.

(Warning: Do NOT read the history of the development of E-Bay, Amazon, Craig’s List, Angie’s List, YouTube or Linkdin. It will depress you).

ADDENDUM:

HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!  HA! Now the ObamaCare website has been shut down for “extended maintenance!”  "Extended maintenance"...right (Psst: Try "rebuilding from the first line of code to the last".)

Well, not for months, just much longer than usual  The site will go offline this weekend from 9 p.m. Saturday until 9 a.m. Sunday. Just 12 hours. No, wait! Thirteen hours. We set our clocks back an hour tonight, remember?

What a bunch of fools you people are.

RIGHTS, RIGHTS AND RIGHTS

So, how much does speech cost? If you are close to normal, it is free. In other words, speech is not a commodity. One does not go out and purchase speech.

We could say virtually the same thing about getting together with friends or to make a point to our leaders, having and expressing religious ideas and sharing what we know with others. Those are called “assembly,” “religion,” and the press, respectively.

You don’t buy unalienable rights. Once purchased (by bloodshed, if necessary), they do not have to be paid for again. They are free.

In language, we have to make distinctions between various ideas. Things you don’t buy but are able to exercise without interference are called rights. Things you have to pay money for are called commodities.

Americans do not have to buy their right to speech, their right to their religion, or their right to print what they want to print. They do not have to purchase their right to bear arms, their right to refuse the quartering of soldiers, the right to be secure against unwarranted search and seizure. They don’t buy their right to due process, their freedom from self-incrimination, their right to speedy trial if accused of a crime, their right to be free from double jeopardy, or their right to reasonable bail. They don’t purchase their right to keep their rights and to protect the rights of others and their right to be free to do anything not expressly prohibited by the Constitution. Those rights are not granted by the Constitution, but are recognized by the Constitution.

Rights are the recognition by government that there are certain things they can neither grant nor prohibit. That’s what rights are. If the government can require, provide it or prohibit it, it is not a right.

Commodities, on the other hand, are purchased. I go to the grocery store to purchase my food. I do not have a right to food. If I want food I have to grow it or buy it. If I want a car, I have to earn enough money to buy one.

I am free to choose whether to by food or a car. Nobody forces me to buy either. Since neither is prohibited by the Constitution, I can make that choice freely and of my own accord.

Now the government has dictated that I have a “right” to health (something that on their best day they cannot provide for me) and that I must purchase a commodity to “insure” it. Apparently, the government of the United States has decided that it has the right to decide what a right is and what is a right.

What, then, are the limits of the rights the government can bestow upon me. Can they decide I have a right to a house? Can they decide I have a right to a car? Can they decide I have a right to food? If they can decide these things, can they decide how much I pay for each? Can they decide what kind of each I can buy? How far can we take that concept and still dare to call ourselves a people of liberty?

Maybe, as long as the government is filled with kind, reasonable people, they can make those kinds of decisions without doing too much harm…maybe. But what if the government is infiltrated with people who are not so kind and not so reasonable? What if they overreach? Who decides when they have overreached?

The outcome could be very different. And it will be.