RSS Feed

a playground of art, photos, videos, writing, music, life


You are here

Random Quote

I'm astounded by people who take eighteen years to write something. That's how long it took that guy to write Madame Bovary, and was that ever on the best-seller list?
-- Sylvester Stallone


Blog - Blog Archive by Month - Blog Archive by Tag - Search Blog and Comments

<-- Go to Previous Page

The Argument Against Fifty Plus One


Thank you, Barry.


by Brett Rogers, 3/3/2010 5:33:14 PM


The most unqualified, clueless President of our lifetime. Beautiful Barry, just beautiful. Enjoy the lecture circuit come 2013.



Posted by Pale Rider, 3/4/2010 10:21:04 PM

I don't think that comments from 2006 and 2007 adequately reflect political realities of 2010. President Obama invited Republicans to work on the issue in a non-partisan manner, and unfortunately, due to fundamental differences, a consensus could not be reached. I think its completely reasonable for the president to move forward as he is doing. The other side of the isle have employed similar political tactics. Its the way politics works in Washington.

I will say that I'm absolutely impressed with the progress and agenda of the president to this point. He has accomplished a great many things in the face of extreme adversity. I'm certain his presidency will considered historic.

Hope you're doing well Brett. Say hi to Tamara for me.



Posted by Shane Schulte, 3/19/2010 10:48:08 AM


All I will say that I have no clue how people purportedly good with math can explain to their children 20 years down the road why they went along with this.

All the best to you and yours, Shane.



Posted by Brett Rogers (, 3/19/2010 11:55:36 AM

I'm great with math and it makes perfect sense. Changing the system and how it works saves us from certain financial disaster. Its not really that complicated. My child will be undoubtedly be better off in 20 years because of the reforms passed this evening.

I'm also pretty good with history. I'll think you'll find that the same arguments being used against Health Care reform today have been used frequently in the past and have never come true.

Our great country has not crumbled into Marxism or Fascism with the introduction of Medicare or Social Security. If anything, I would argue it has increased our freedoms as citizens.

Sorry to rant on your blog. I truly respect you and your opinions and just enjoy a civil conversation every now and then.



Posted by Shane Schulte, 3/21/2010 11:44:20 PM

You can rant here any time you like, Shane.

No government program ever comes in under or on budget. Social Security is under water now, as are Medicare and Medicaid, Fannie and Freddie needs bailing out, and even the Postal Service, which is actually supposed to be self-funded, bleeds red ink.

In just 421 days, President Obama increased our nation's debt by $2 trillion, and that doesn't count the health care bill that just passed. Think that will come in under or on budget?

While we're looking at history, let's look for one country where nationalized health care was implemented and the tax rates remained low and the budget remained in control... could be a long search.

Math: if I laid $100 bills end-to-end, after a mile, I would have $1 million. Now some people have a problem differentiating between a million and a billion and a trillion. To provide a visual aid, consider that you'd have to circle the earth 40 times with $100 bills to get to $1 trillion.

78 million baby boomers are just starting to hit Social Security and Bush's prescription drug benefit and Medicare. None of those programs have sufficient funding. The only way to resolve that is to either cut the benefits or raise taxes. Which is politically more likely? And this doesn't even consider adding 30 million people to "free" health care.

Here's the bewildering thing for me: I know how much you love your family - does any man love his family more than you? No. And I know you're a smart guy who, in the past, has championed business.

So why are breaking out the pom poms for the deficit-loving narcissist in the White House? He's bankrupting your kids, Shane. If you did the math, you'd know that. And then you'd be pissed, which is appropriate when someone comes after your kids.

If you really agreed with me on freedom - that people should be free to choose the direction of their own lives so long as they are not stepping on the liberties of others - and you seemed to agree with me in another post here - then your devotion to what the Democrats are doing in Washington today would wither quickly.

The founding fathers of this country were smarter than both of us and understood that government is best when government is limited. I'm a fan of neither party, Shane. They both suck. And they both need to be reined in, or our children will be a very heavy price.



Posted by Brett Rogers (, 3/22/2010 8:01:09 AM

The timing of your concerns reveals your lack of conviction. You are aware that our deficit problems became critical after President Reagan decided that we could drastically lower taxes and civic responsibilities without a similar decrease in spending. President Clinton was the one to reverse that course, and prosperity ensued. That progress was short lived as President Bush failed to fund two wars and an increase in prescription drug benefits.

President Obama has had to deal with a financial crisis not seen since the great depression. His efforts to stimulate the economy have succeeded and we're starting to see the upturn right now. Thank God for his action or we'd have lost a decade's worth of productivity. Affordable Care Act is going to save American Tax Payers over a trillion dollars in the next 20 years.

Instead of raising your voice when it mattered the most, when Republicans were using the false pretenses of "freedom" and "liberty" to line to pockets of oilmen, financiers, and arms dealers with tax payer money, you've decided to rise up when we finally have the right person in office to undo the injustices inflicted on Americans since Reagan took office.

Our founding fathers understood that 'all men are created equal'. The constitution states, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." They clearly understood that government would play an important role in providing a free and just society that provided for the security, defense, and welfare of its citizens.

You're not advocating freedom. You're not advocating reasonable government. You're advocating no government. And that is just plain stupid.



Posted by Shane Schulte, 4/1/2010 4:29:48 PM

I don't know who you're aiming that comment to, but I don't know anyone advocating "no government." Limited government - now that's the ticket. It's even Constitutional.



Posted by Brett Rogers (, 4/1/2010 9:52:37 PM

Add Your Comment:
Name (required):
Web Site:
Remember Me:   
Content: (4000 chars remaining)
To prevent spammers from commenting, please give a one-word answer to the following trivia question:

What's the name of the joint in the middle of your leg?