Obama is doing it again. Earlier this year he delayed the employer mandate now he is delaying the individual mandate.
Dialectical Marxism: 3 Steps Forward = Obama Care, 2 Steps Back = Delay Employer Mandate:
The Devil is in the Dialectic -
What is the dialectic? It means progress towards the perfect Marxist state is not always in a straight line. This is why the devil is in the dialectic. A classic example just occurred today when the White House announced that President Obama was delaying the ObamaCare employer mandate for a year.
When Marxists push their agenda too hard, so hard that people start to get edgy and the fallout gets to be too noticeable, they’ll pull back and take the pressure off. [Taken from the teachings of Vladimir Lenin,] Red Scarf children under Mao [Zedong] were made to do the dialectic march of three steps forward and two steps backward. The way Fred Schwartz describes it in the book “You Can Still Trust the Communists to be Communists,” he likened it to the action of hammering a nail. First the hammer comes down—–ObamaCare—–then the hammer comes back up——delay ObamaCare employer mandate——then the hammer comes back down again—-implement ObamaCare employer mandate.
Remember when President Obama wanted to appear as if he was someone who wanted to lower taxes so he had the Democrats lower payroll taxes until after the 2012 election, and then everyone’s payroll taxes went back up? That was another example. They pretend to be conservative before they bring down the hammer of their progressive agenda.
That too many companies were changing many of their employees from full time to part time and the employment numbers were obviously not improving as a result of the impending mandate to force employers to purchase health insurance started to get the
Democrat’s where it hurts. Even the unions were mad about it. Something had to be done. It was time to bring the hammer back up again. Some call it a brilliant move. We’ll see. The best laid plans of mice and men .
Read more at http://blurbrain.com/obama-takes-another-dialectic-step-backwards-like-good-commie-obamacare/#V41wGwtQv3SUrBKP.99
PT, Comrade ObaMAO does what he wants because he hates our Constitution and he hates our country.
Then we have Republicans like Boehner, Cantor, McConnell, McLame, and Graham who are a bunch of spineless turds who cuddle up with Obama.
We are doomed as the lamestream media is already pushing for Chris Christie Cream as the Republican Nominee and he probably will be who the GOP will pick.
Obamacare and 91.5 million Americans have one thing in common.
Neither are working.
PT, and Z, you will find this very interesting. Under HIPAA it is against the law for these insurance polices to be cancelled under ObamaCare. It appears Obama is once again ignoring the law and allowing insurance companies to violate the law in order to get them onboard with Ovomit Care.
degage, Obama wasn't hood winked. He knew ObamaCare would be a failure why do you think it was not rolled out until after last years presidential election. Obama is on record saying he is for a single payer system.
Bill Clinton gave the democrats cover when he said earlier today "Even if it takes a change to the law, the president should honor the commitment the federal government made" to younger, healthy health insurance beneficiaries "and let 'em keep what they got."
Billy knows the democrats who are up for re-election next year will now use this to distance themselves from ObamaCare and he also knows they will be grateful to Hillary in 2016.
Al posted "If someone owns 40 acres of land, and that land is not being used to raise food, that land is being wasted."
If I remember correctly you said at one time you owned 25 acres of land because you got such a great deal on it. Are there two different sets of rules you live by?
I believe you also said that you did eventually sell all but two acres of the land. If that is so, do you really need two acres to live on? That seems excessive because a lot of people live a lots that are the size of a postage stamp.
Al posted earlier today "For the third time, I don't judge people based on on brief encounter, but that doesn't mean I don't raise my eyebrows now and then, when I see a case of possible abuse."
On November 3, 2013 at 1:15pm Al posted "I stood in line at my local Bi-Lo the other night for twenty minutes, behind a young man and a young woman, who had what appeared to be a 6 month old baby. They appeared to be almost athletic. Nice clothes, clean, etc."
"I may be liberal, but I don't understand why a couple of people clearly able to work, are granted hundreds of dollars worth of free food each month, simply for popping out a kid."
Sure sounds like you judged this couple after a brief encounter.
yddem, you are correct I misspoke, Obama is accused of crimes against humanity.
Gauss, tell me what is not factual in what I presented?
roo, posted " It is only the greedy bastards that I have a problem with, who believe that their wealth distinguishes them from ordinary folks and who think they are "entitled" to the tax loopholes and advantages that have been lavished upon them for too long."
Do you mean Obama's good friend Warren Buffett whose company is still fighting the IRS over $1 billion in back taxes?
Or when Buffet says the rich should pay more but he has never offered to pay extra to the IRS each year.
Or could you be referring to Obama himself who himself takes advantages of tax shelters and claims all of the deductions he can.
Remember Obama also said the rich should pay more but he never went back to amend his taxes and not take those deductions.
See roo, liberals are happy with everyone else paying more in taxes as long as they don't have to pay more.
By the way what is your definition of greedy? Who determines when someone has too much?