Open Chat... All Day, Every Day! Express Your Views, Debate, and Challenge the Views of Others!

In order to keep up with the nature of free, spirited debate, I wanted to place the chat feature at the top of the homepage. This ensures people can come here and share their views on anything they wish and not have it be related to any specific discussion. Here, people can share ideas, links, and views "unmoderated" and an their own pace. To me, this makes The Elephant in the Room blog truly a place for debate.

Monday, February 25, 2013

Weekly News Headline and Debate Topic Forum - 2/25/13

Ugh... sorry for getting this up so late. I'll work on making this better. I hope the blog doesn't turn in to this and a couple of radio shows...

Anyone want to be an admin? :)


  1. Hi LME : )

    I'll skip all the gun grab nonsense out of CO last week. I'm sure everyone has seen/heard of it and has formed their own opinions.

    But here's some other stuff that might be of interest...

    IF, as Biden states: 'The American people are 100% the administrations 'plan' on gun 'control' - why the need to cheat?

    MSNBC 'Reported'? Gee, perhaps they're finally waking up.

    CNN 'bashed' Ms. Obama's 'Monarch-like' appearance at the Oscars -- more evidence the occupiers in the White House DO think they're 'royalty'... it's gonna be a l-o-n-g 'four more years'

    1. And then there's the sequester: In the vernacular of Turkey Lurky and Goosey Loosey -- Obama and his minions: 'The sky is falling, the sky is falling!'
      ***Does anyone else have a feeling of 'oh my God -- a meltdown on the horizon' de ja vouz?

      Note: The sequester WAS Obama's idea - he and Lew and Harry Reid OWN IT.

      'I'll veto any attempt to avoid these cuts...' Barack Obama 2011

    2. Hey Dara. I can't help but laugh at President Chicken Little and the Chicken Little (or Chicken S@#t, whichever) media. Government will spend as much money this year as last year and about $15 Billion MORE. Where exactly are the "CUTS"? The "cuts" aren't to ACTUAL spending, they are to the growth rate.

      I personally think it is high time that the Federal Government "Pays it's FAIR SHARE" through actual cuts in spending.

      Funny how Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) thinks a Congressional pay cut is beneath the dignity of their job. They sure don't have any problems at all making our take home income less. Isn't that beneath the dignity of our jobs? Or does that only apply to the ruling class?

      I just can't believe that the sky is going to fall because we are only going to spend $15 Billion more this year than last year. Isn't 3.7 TRILLION enough?

    3. I agree. When Boehner first came in, he was all jazzed that he 'cut' Congressional salaries by a big ol' whopping 5% - oooh baby, baby.

      How about 20% across the board - STARTING with the Pres?

      And WHY can Rand Paul 'give back' $600,000 that he DID NOT 'need' from HIS budget? Just how MUCH money are they 'allotted'? AND how much money do those people need to 'run their offices' for cryin' out loud?!

      And...we need to stop this 'baseline budget' nonsense.

  2. Some 'news' I came across this a.m.

    Maybe we could cut/remove/BAN ALL government funded programs such as this one... I'd bet we might be able to get rid of that 'nasty ol' sequester' -- with a chunk of 'change' left over (one could 'hope' : )

    Perhaps this is the 'revenge' the won talked about in his never-ending, perpetual campaign?

    DHS AND the Congressional 'Budget' Committee say its cheaper to 'send them home'... not that the pandering pinheads on EITHER side of the aisle give a hoot.

    This is interesting - and why are we just now hearing about it?

    This program started in '09... weird as it is, I can't find out whether it's STILL on going? The article does state should recipients end up back on welfare - they still get to keep the car...and gas and insurance - pd for by the people of Mass! As my dearly departed Dad used to say: Nice work - if you can get it.

    Wouldn't bus or train - or hell even TAXI fare be cheaper??? With a taxi the taxpayers could at LEAST know WHERE these 'free riders' were going on THEIR dimes... job interview or perhaps.. a strip club?

    Well, it looks like the Thief-in-Chief will settle for nothing less than .... wait for it... ANOTHER TAX increase! Who'da thunk it? Hey! Didn't we ALREADY play that game?

    1. A second tax increase is necessary....he already spent the first one.

    2. Hi Slim,

      You're right. And what do we think he'd new with another 'revenue enhancement' (don'cha just love - lib speak?). What his minions don't get: Sooner or later we'll run out of 'rich' people.

      First they came for the rich, but I wasn't rich, so I said nothing... and you know the rest.

  3. I thought this was a great article I happened to stumble upon:

    1. Hi RKen,

      I saw that... the only thing I have to say about it is the same thing I've said all along. Marriage - any flavor is a STATES rights issue. No way, No how does it belong at the FEDERAL level. Uh, oh...I hear ya thinkin'... yes - that INCLUDES D.O.M.A.

      What I don't understand. When anyone (on the right) brings up the PROVEN FACTS of Obama's destructive, failed and failing policies, the left (gays included) respond with: 'The people spoke, you lost. Shut up and deal w/it.'

      BUT, when the PEOPLE of 40+ states spoke - and DECLINED the offer to legalize gay marriage in THEIR states, the lefties and the gays said: OH! NO WAY... we'll take you to court - and make SURE we get OUR WAY.

      Interestingly enough, We The People, those that are FOR as well as those of us who are AGAINST this usurpation of STATES rights - we ALL get to pick up the tab!

      If you remember - Obama decreed HIS DOJ would NO LONGER defend D.O.M.A in the courts... He cited COST as his reason.

      Double standard much? I guess they learned that from their 'My way or the highway' Divider-in-Chief.

      Another point that none of these libs wants to address is SS. Statistically, the homosexual lifestyle is fraught with health issues - up to and including premature death (more prevalent in males).

      Under current SS regs, if one partner passes, the surviving partner receives a 'death benefit'. These 'gay' male recipients will have had 'spouses' that for the most part earned a higher than 'average' wage - in life... but the early demise/disability DIRECTLY CAUSED BY their lifestyle choice - can/will remove them from the workforce - prematurely - resulting in either SS Disability - or death benefit payments.

      SS - already stretched beyond belief ($20 trillion - with a T) - WILL FAIL - even quicker than projected.

      Just another 'unintended consequence'... I guess.