RSSObama Robs Florida McDonalds
February 2, 2012
Squeaky - See all 31 of my articles
Obama robs Florida McDonald’s at gun point
Obama was recently spotted at a Riviera Beach, Florida McDonald’s. This happened on January 29th, 2012 just after 6:00 am. Barack Obama was seen walking into McDonalds with a chromed semiautomatic handgun displayed. He ordered the employees into an office and ordered them to open the safe. Obama left the restaurant after ordering everyone to stay in the office or he’d kill them. Obama left on foot with nearly $1,000. While this story is true, I left out one detail. The armed robber was actually wearing an Obama mask.
When I read this story I had to laugh just a little at the irony here. It made me wonder if the robber is just a dirt bag thief or was trying to send a message to the American people. I really just chalked him/her up as an idiot thief (because I can’t stand thieves and untrustworthy people). When Kosmo reminded me that I had an article coming up though, I thought about the flip side to that story. What if the thief really was trying to speak to us without words? What would his/her message be?
I believe the message would be one of fiscal nature since the person was stealing money. Obama is also trying to steal our money. Not for his personal financial gain (or is he?) but for the tax coffers of the US Government. Obama is said by some to be a socialist and that really seems true. Build a large government, give the government your money and let the government spend it how it determines best. Remember the Joe the Plumber “event” where the phrase “Spread the wealth around” was coined? That is socialism at its core and in my opinion is nothing short of theft.
I’ve written in the past about Obamacare and what that will do to our taxes. The CBO has told us that the estimates provided don’t make sense; they won’t cover costs and hat it will need to be bailed out by the US People. How does that happen? Taxes need to increase. There probably has been be a time when the government had an excess and they could find that money elsewhere, but that time is NOT now. Charlie Gibson is clearly a liberal reporter and even he understands the issues with this. Why Obama continues to push liberal agendas and tax increases is beyond me. I once had someone tell me that they thought it would be great if everyone would give 100% of their paycheck to the government and then they could let the government provide for them. I have never heard such non-sense and I still don’t understand that thinking today. I don’t understand why anyone would work harder than others, innovate, create, put in long hours and weekends, etc. if they were just going to give all their money to the government. If any of the readers understand this, please explain it to me.
Election News
Romney just won big in Florida taking their 50 votes. We still see Ron Paul and Rick Santorum still going through the motions and trying to win…something. I understand why Newt is still in it, because he may have a chance. Ron Paul and Santorum though…the time has come to hang it up. They stand no chance. I realize that there have only been four “primaries” (quotes due to some being caucuses) but the results and the polls are clear. I would however be interested in knowing if anyone has ever recovered from a similar situation. I suspect that Santorum and Ron Paul will hang on until Super Tuesday (March 6th this year) and then reconsider if their positions haven’t changed. Newt has already indicated that he’s in this for the long haul so we can expect that battle to drag out for quite a while.
True conservatism seems dead.
Squeaky…
Feb 02, 2012 @ 09:40:27
“I once had someone tell me that they thought it would be great if everyone would give 100% of their paycheck to the government and then they could let the government provide for them.”
Obviously, I don’t agree with this.
Health care, however, is a tricky issue. If I lost my job and insurance and happen to get cancer, I don’t want to die because I can’t afford the treatments. I’d prefer that there be a safety net to catch me. By extension, this means a safety net for everyone. I’ll pay for that safety net, just to make sure it’s there if I need it some day.
Obviously, the individual mandate is a big issue. Let’s set that aside for a moment and look at what I consider to be the flip side of the mandate – the existing requirement for providers to provide emergency treatment, regardless of ability to pay. This has resulted in some people using the local ER as their primary care provider. Definitely not the intended purpose of the ER, and at great expense to everyone else. Beyond that, there are a great number of actual emergencies where the provider doesn’t receive any payment.
In my mind, these two issues are coupled. We should either require both – the individual mandate to have insurance and the mandate for providers to provide emergency care – or we should require neither.