“What's happening to the country now is a VERY good example of why NOT to put either party in complete control. OB rants about bipartisanship then he and congress do everything possible to ensure there is NONE. Both parties have been co-opted by their extremes. On a scale of 1-100 with 1-15 being the extreme left and 86-100 being the extreme right, OB is about 20 and every time he announces another program he steps another point to the left. The reps are running about 83-84 right now. BOTH parties have decided the 70% between them is irrelevent and are actively ignoring them. Of that 70%, independant votes--regardless of registration--amount to probably 40-45%. These are the people who are abandoning the dem party in droves. They are also the ones who make or break elections, Mr Brown is pulling them about 3-1 over Coakley. If, in the bluest of blue states, the dems either lose, or win closely Kennedy's seat then they are in VERY serious trouble elsewhere, and Mr Brown appears to be over 50% now. Tuesday, and by extrension, Nov bear watching closely. This race is very much a referendum of OB and the dem agenda. If the dems DON'T see the handwriting on the wall--it's in neon colors--it'll be CUL for them. (see you later for those who haven't been in military communications.)”
“Talk about having a head in the sand!!! WHO resisted EVERY attempt to rein in Fannie and Freddie??? Barney Frank and his dem cohorts. WHO is having to BUY his OWN party members to pass this monstrosity of a healthcare bill?? Reid. How MANY dems voted to go into Iraq?? Nearly ALL of them---and DON'T give me that song and dance about being "lied" to. it was only "Lying" when Bush said WMD, not when Hillery, Kennedy, Reid, Bill, or ANY other dem said it. ONLY when Bush said it. Please explain to me how a person diagnosed with prostate cancer of the same type and degree as Sen Dodd's has a survival rate of nearly 100%--insurance or NO insurance--here but only 85% in Canada and a stellar 77% in England?? PLEASE explain how that is BETTER than what we have now. (from an interview with an English politician I watched) Please tell me how, if the bill is so good that 12-15 million people will STILL NOT be covered. (and NOT rich people who buy their own) If you think this bill is affordable then ask Reid and Pelosi how much was lowballed or downright left out so the CBO could give a figure UNDER1.5T. Finally, answer THIS question: if the bill is NOT good enough for the prez, the congress, the unions and high gov officials to participate in then WHY in HELL is it "good" enough for the REST of us??”
Waltfl on Jan 18, 2010 at 17:53:24
“Don't believe everything the RNC talking-point paper preaches. I can't comment on Canada, but I have lived and worked in Switzerland, Germany, and France. In all three countries "socialized" health care cost half, RX a quarter, and service was overall (with exceptions) better.
Comparing survival rates of one cancer-type is bogus. You have to compare survival rates of all common illnesses, and life expectancy in general. That I can tell you as an engineer who is trained in statistics. Only then can you draw a conclusion about the functionality of a system. If you do this you will see that the USA is way behind in average. From what I have seen I'd probably get a heart transplant done in the USA, but would have 90% of all other illnesses rather treated in Europe.”
“Where to begin...What the majority of the country has supported is the need to increase access to health care. The have NOT supported the dem agenda that calls for not only throwing the baby out with the bath water but gutting the entire house in addition. While it may be true that 60-75% of the country thinks there needs to be changes, ANOTHER 60-75% think the dem agenda to redo healthcare is the wrong way to go about it,. It's too big, too expensive, too invasive and too socialistic. In addition, even with the changes there will STILL be 15-20 million people who won't be covered. The things that need to be done can be done through other laws and regulations. The fact that Reid and Pelosi have had to "buy" their OWN partys support says this bill needs to be killed and the process restarted. I will ask a question that NO lib or dem has answered yet, not OB, not Reid, not Pelosi, not ANYONE: if the present bill isn't good enough for the congress, the prez, the highest gov officials or the unions, WHY in HELL do they think it's "good" enough for the REST of us??”
PATina on Jan 18, 2010 at 12:54:42
“Let me start w/ your question first...
What is different between what the Congress and the others you mentioned have... and what we have? That's your problem... thinking that any changes have really been made to our system. It hasn't. The only difference is that those that don't have insurance... whether because the insurance companies denied them coverage or they chose not to have coverage... will now have coverage (whether they want it or can afford it). That's it. Everyone... including Congress, the Prez and everyone else is REQUIRED to purchase insurance (unless they qualify for Medicare... and that's the same for anyone). No one is exempted. If your insurance is provided by your employer (like Congress or the Prez)... you will continue to have whatever coverage your employer allows you to have. As far as the unions... some of them would have had a burden the rest of us may not have had... additional taxes added to their plans. They negotiated a deal so they won't have those taxes added. And yes, I agree, their deal is unfair to others who also have those plans but aren't in unions.
Now I agree w/ you... this bill SUCKS and needs to be killed. However... we disagree on WHY.”
“As for the "lack" of rep input, it's very hard to get input when EVERY suggestion is voted down out of hand, ignored , and actively ridiculed. I'm one of the independants that the dem party is driving away in droves because of the direction the dem party is taking the country. Right now, I wouldn't vote for a dem if he was the only candidate for honey-wagon licker. Personally, I see NO hope for dem continued control after Nov because if they can't hold on to Kennedys seat in the bluest of the blue states--or if the race is as close as it has become--then they are in VERY big trouble elsewhere. Every dem in congress who was elected from a moderate or conservative district will be looking at OB, Reid, Pelosi and the dem agenda to make a decision as to whether continued support will be good or bad for their next election--and I wouldn't take bets as to which way they'll jump. Mr Browns run in MA may derail the healthcare monstrosity whether he wins OR loses...and the dem establishment KNOWS it.”
“I've seen LOTS of posts contending UT would have beat Bama if McCoy hadn't had to leave, but Bama essentially took a break the third quarter and the first half of the fourth. They wouldn't have done that if McCoy had been in the game. As it was, Bama spotted them two field goals before going to work...and one of them was while McCoy was on the field. Having watched Bama all year one trend I noticed was a sometimes tendancy to play just enough better to win against their opponent. There were a couple of games that were REAL nail-biters if you were a Bama fan--which I have been since the early '60's--, specifically the Tennessee and Auburn games. They had to block 2 field goal attempts against the Vols in the final minutes of the game to preserve the victory and they had to score a touchdown in the last minute of the game against Auburn. None of the other games were particularly difficult for them. Texas and Auburn tried the "hurry-up" offense a'la Utah last year, but Bama had learned how to cope with that very well since the Sugar Bowl. I would have liked to see McCoy return but his understudy did very well and will be a joy to watch . Both teams brought their "A" teams and the game was very good,. It could have been a little smoother on Bamas side but they got the job done. RRROOOLLLLLL TTTIIIDDDEEE!!!”
“Just my opinion: When Trent Lott said what he did, the outcry demanding his ouster was hot, heavy, and loud. The same attitudes expressed by Reid, however, have led to nothing but "forgiveness" by everyone from the prez, to the NAACP, Al sharpton, The CBC, and every other lib voice you can think of. (I haven't seen Jesse Jacksons take yet, but he will probably "forgive" him too.) Slips of the tongue and "candid" statements usually show ones TRUE attitudes that are normally kept guarded. If Reid DOESN'T get canned, then the lib/dems are fully admitting that a "double standard" does, in fact, exist.
Everyone has a history, but it seems only libs/dems are allowed to change.”
DannyDanson on Jan 14, 2010 at 13:20:22
“This is more like your ideology, clothed in a generality which you conveniently call your "opinion" but I digress.
The difference is clear for the clear-headed non-agenda driven on-looker, Trent Lot is a racist, no only does he hold prejudice views of blacks (prejudice), per his own statements he supported the subordination of blacks to whites (discrimination) and in his opinion if we were governed by policies based on that understanding (Racism) the country would have not been in the supposedly bad situation in which it was at the time, you see if Lot had just said "I don't like black people" that wouldn't independantly revealled that he was a racist, he has a right to his opinion and to speak freely, but that's not what Lot did he basically defended racism as a desirable policy for a nation based on individual freedoms, not only did he show that he was a racist, he showed us that he was unAmerican.
Harry Reid's comments on the other, didn't even speak badly specifically of black people, actually he was expressing doubt in the racial maturity of white voters in the country by claiming (In a ill-advised, and not thouroughly considered manner) that whites wouldn't vote for a dark-Skinned Al Sharptonese candidate in large enough volumes for that candidate to win.
You can't attempt to make these equivalent without a hidden agenda, or a learning disability.”
donbrown on Jan 14, 2010 at 01:55:45
“Where you are wrong ---the attitudes were not the same. In fact, they are polar opposites.”
“Just an observation: If the definition of "liberal" includes the words ...tolerant of the ideas and actions of others... HOW can libs call themselves honest or liberal with the name-calling, insulting, downright vileness they write about people who think differently than themselves. The word "hypocrite" comes to mind--and I mean that for BOTH sides of the political spectrum. However, the radical right DOESN'T try to pass itself off as "liberal."
Just my opinion: When Trent Lott said what he did, the outcry demanding his ouster was hot, heavy, and loud. The same attitudes expressed by Reid, however, have led to nothing but "forgiveness" by everyone from the prez, to the NAACP, Al sharpton, The CBC, and every other lib voice you can think of. (I haven't seen Jesse Jacksons take yet, but he will probably "forgive" him too.) Slips of the tongue and "candid" statements usually show ones TRUE attitudes that are normally kept guarded. If Reid DOESN'T get canned, then the lib/dems are fully admitting that a "double standard" does, in fact, exist.”
WoodyCPM on Jan 14, 2010 at 06:22:06
“Are NOT equivalent. The two statements are NOT equivalent.”
WoodyCPM on Jan 14, 2010 at 06:19:51
“Right wing talking point.
Lott said, ‘When Strom Thurmond ran for president, we voted for him. We’re proud of it. And if the rest of the country had followed our lead, we wouldn’t have had all these problems over all these years, either. Background: Strom Thurmond, Seanator ran on the States Rights Democratic Party ticket, a 3rd party whose slogan was "Segregation Forever!" Segregation is a racist philosophy, or so most Americans have believed now for over 50 years. Lott endorsed it.
Reid said, according to Halperin and Heileman in their book Game Change, "“He was wowed by Obama’s oratorical gifts and believed that the country was ready to embrace a black presidential candidate, especially one such as Obama — a ‘light-skinned’ African American ‘with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one,’ as he later put it privately”. However inelegantly, however clumsily he said it, nothing Reid said is an untruth. Obama is a light skinned black and he doesn't sound like Mr. T. To point out either of those qualities in the context of a Presidential election, given the historical racial perceptions of the U.S., means someone is a racist.
Lott's comments and Reid's comment, both of which were uttered in private, are equivalent. Lott's was a clear endorsement of a racist philosophy. Reid's weren't. Stop trying to make them the same thing.”
mbsq on Jan 14, 2010 at 01:39:01
“Sorry but, the world isn't reducible to simply logical constructions. Being intolerant of lying and double-crossing is neither liberal nor conservative. No, "liberal" does not mean "tolerant of everything." That's not even in the dictionary.”
masher on Jan 14, 2010 at 01:34:22
“Oops, I meant Liberal means "favorable to reform or progress."”
masher on Jan 14, 2010 at 01:33:28
“If you look up liberal in the dictionary it means "favorable to reform or reform."
As opposed to conservatives who tend to resist change and reform. There is good and bad with both. Reforms can go too far and sometimes we really need reform to go further or not at all.
But I do agree with Teddy Roosevelt that the worst sort of person are those who think there are no problems.
Now, is Reid a "liberal"...I would say clearly no. Reid is a corporatist, a neo-feudalist.
I don't know anyone defending Reid. Yes, the corporate communist in the Democratic party are apologizing for Reid but they are certainly NOT liberal or conservative. They don't care about America at all. They only care about Wall Street.
I hope that helps to explain things.”
fuOBL on Jan 14, 2010 at 01:32:29
“They will never admit it!”
Helzapoppin on Jan 14, 2010 at 01:29:14
“Lott was ousted because the White House wanted him out for completely different reasons. Republicans used his comments as an excuse to achieve that goal. Apples and oranges.”
“This is REALLY rich. The dems are going to kill healthcare all by themselves. Reid isn't going to do anything because he STILL needs Liebermans vote on the final bill . Then there was the "buying" of Nelson from Neb with the bill promising to make the Fed eat Nebs share of the increased Medicaid and Medicare costs. How MUCH more dishonest can you get? While a large majority, including me, think there need to be changes made in health care, an equally large majority thinks the dem ramjob, er, bill goes at it the wrong way and is much too costly. The dems crow about the first majority, but don't seem willing or able to admit the second. Once again I will ask in vain: If the bill is not good enough for the prez, congress, and the unions then WHY IN HELL do they think it's good enough for the rest of us? I've been asking that question for the last 6 months, and guess what? NO ONE has answered it yet. C'mon all you high-browed, libs and dems who know what's best for everyone else, can't you answer a simple question? Also explain how a prostate cancer cure rate--insurance or not--of the type and stage as Sen Dodds is virtually 100% curable here, 85% curable in Canada and 77% curable in England. Please do tell me HOW that is somehow "better."”
jrutle on Jan 14, 2010 at 00:50:49
“Its maddening to me that Reid doesn't need Lieberman if he'd use his power as majority leader and kill filibuster and cloture through a procedural motion he has available (the nuclear option that Frist threatened to use). The Senate bill is bad mainly because the majority leader doesn't have the courage to legislate by simple majority.”
“If it gets posted, see my reply to the poster replying to the first half of this post. The fact that there has been little to no criticism--especially public-- of the Muslim exemtrist movements by these "hard-working productive" people and their "leaders" is very telling. And yes, I HAVE been in the middle East before. The main problem for Islam, as I see it, is it cannot prove it is a religion of peace as its proponents claim...at least not by modern example.”
“Thank you for mainly confirming my deductions. While I may be off on numbers, the concept is proven valid by your own post reply. The next question is WHEN were the christian facilities constructed? I would guess PRIOR to the last 40 or 50 years--in other words, while most of the cited countries were occupied by European powers. How much new construction since the countries adopted their OWN Islamic governments?? Statistics on THAT please. As Mark Twain once said, "There are lies, there are Damn lies, and then there are STATISTICS."
As for most religions having extremist factions, I totally agree. But the crusades have been over for about 500 years, yet non-muslims are still called "crusaders". And it has been a very long time since christianity was united, as a religion, against anyone. Can you say the same about contemporary Islam? I haven't seen any news stories about Baptists or Methodists, blowing up synagogues or Catholic churches--but I HAVE read about Muslims blowing up schools, government buildings, market places, bridges,and otherwise doing their best to keep their countrymen ignorant and subjugated...and practically NO condemnation from any Muslim anywhere for the idiots doing the violance. During Northern Ireland's problems, condemnation for BOTH sides was practically universal...among both countries and among both religions. We still do not see that from Islam. So I repeat, when Islam accepts other religions as equally important and acts accordingly, the Muslim world has NO standing to complain.”
“When the muslim countries allow the building of churches and synagogues then and only then will they have a right to protest. Can you build a mosque in Switzerland? In France? In Germany? In England? How about any other European nation?? The answer is yes to all the above. Now, can you build a church or synagogue in Iran? In Dubai? In Saudi Arabia? In Jordan? In Oman? In Yemen? How about nearly any other Islamic country?? In this case the answer is NO..and even if you could how long do you think the local Imams would tolerate it before "exhorting" their followers to "remedy" this insult to Islam? Answer, not very long. How many non-muslims would be killed in the process of "remedying" the insult? Most likely as many as they could find and as quick as they could find them. What was the difference between a rabid Nazi and a regular German in WWII? None..they were both working toward winning the war. What is the difference between a radical Muslim and a moderate Muslim? None. They both want to see Islam the only religion on Earth and death to all who don't agree with that aim. Moderate Islams lack of a voice on Islamic terrorist acts speaks much louder than their whisper against radicalism. EVERY country is entitled to their own laws, culture, and expectations. If you immigrate to a country you are expected to conform to its laws and culture.”
Chipher on Nov 30, 2009 at 00:54:36
“...and I think _W.ikkans and _D.ruids should be able to dance _n.aked around their Tree of Life in every city square, but that ain'ta gonna happen, is it, RWS?”
hemara on Nov 29, 2009 at 22:21:54
“I can tell you from experience that there are churches and temples in the UAE (you cited Dubai) for other faiths including Hindus and Christians.
Five minutes of research tells me this:
• Iran: 600 christian churches - 300,000 christians, 25 synagogues in Tehran - 25,000 Jews.
• Jordan: 350,000 christians (6% population), 32 roman catholic churches, roman catholics comprising 1/6 of christians in jordan.
• Oman: non-muslims are less than 5%, can't find much more.
• Yemen: less than 1% non-muslim, Yemen is a failing state so I imagine religious freedom is limited though there are 4 churches and a hindu temple in Aden.
* Saudi Arabia has no legislated freedom of religion.
Religious tolerance could be better in all of these countries, granted. But you criticise those countries and then propose the solution is to emulate their intolerance ???
Switzerland is institutionalising bigotry with this ban.
Every religion has those that interpret it in the most extreme and violent way, even christianity. You've somehow decided that all muslims share that interpretation which just isn't borne out by the facts.”
“Contd) Only the US has it backwards--our liberals expect the US to bend over backwards to conform to the expectations of immigrants rather than the immigrant meeting OUR laws and expectations. Learning English is not a requirement for citizenship any more, for example. You don't even have to come here legally, either. I truly support Switzerlands decision--it was THEIRS to make and THEIRS is the ONLY opinion that counts. Kudos to Switzerland for having the guts to make a statement. Maybe it will inspire others to tell Islam to stay in the sand dunes, deserts, and mountains until they decide they don't want to live in the 6th century.”
reasonshouldrule on Nov 29, 2009 at 23:06:16
“This kind of stunning generalization takes my breath away. Do you not know that by far the majority of Islamic people living outside the Middle East are not the fanatic terrorists you assume but rather productive and loyal citizens of their adopted countries? I live in one of the largest areas of Muslim groups in the U.S., and I know that most are good, solid American citizens.”
“Not quite there yet--but OB is doing his best to get us there!!! Our only hope is to boot a few Democrats in th '10 elections...and they're doing their best to make that happen. (They've totally forgotten WHY they got booted out in the '90s. Rather that LEARN from history, they want to repeat it.)”
pinkyboo on Nov 27, 2009 at 12:54:54
“Yes give power back to the repubes because it worked so well for 8 stinking years.”
“You are a perfect example of people who let the "Party" dictate their thinking. If you so want the present "nanny-state" politics to continue, I suggest you move to Europe where you won't have to wait for 7 or 8 years...or just possibly forever.”
Blink2X on Nov 28, 2009 at 14:32:08
Margo Arrowsmith on Nov 27, 2009 at 16:21:37
“Wow, I join a state that I like the president, and you assume that I am being dictated to by the party? What odd logic that is!
BTW, 'nanny state' is an overused term for those who speak in CPC (conservative political correctness) and you have the PCP talking points down pat!
“WAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHH..STILL crying about 2000 are we? HOW MANY recounts did you want? Until you got 1 that said Gore won then O.K. we can stop now--just like kids in a playground arguing. If, in fact, the '00's were the worst then there is more than enough blame to go around as was so amply pointed out by the poster who said the '30s were worst because of the unmet threats from Hitller. Every decade builds on the one before, for good or bad. But since CLINTON was in charge during the '90s that rule "doesn't exist". The fact that the Dem/lib section of the country did their best to hinder, obstruct, and tear down the president ensured that the decade would be "the worst" would never enter into their feeble little brain cell's reasoning. As never does the fact that even the studies funded by the DEMOCRATIC PARTY showed Bush won.”
Blink2X on Nov 28, 2009 at 14:24:53
sloreader on Nov 28, 2009 at 14:14:06
“Idiots in your rear view mirror are closer than they appear!”
TruEngineHearing on Nov 28, 2009 at 09:27:00
“My "feeble little brain cells" are free of ideas like yours - that's the good buzz. Enjoy your myths; I know I am amused by mine.”
feliznavidad on Nov 27, 2009 at 20:45:43
“Actually you can track the demise of the middle class right to Ronnie Regan and his voodoo economics and his White House astrologist.”
guntotinganglion on Nov 27, 2009 at 17:58:41
“You know, thinking that Obama can do more damage in 9 months than Bush was capable of in 8 years, should be taken as a compliment. It is however, a statement on how stupid Bush is, rather than on how smart Obama is.
What I find fascinating, is a person who clearly has been through many Presidential cycles and yet still believes that one side is better than the other. The elections in my life all clearly focused me on the fact that they are ALL politicians who will say whatever it takes to get elected, then will do as they please. They do not do as we ask, they do as their owners demand...and we ain't their owners. Those would be the warporations that have invested in war ad infinitum.
The only real contrasts between political parties now are between the fringe parties...not the two dinosaurs that have long since been bought and paid for over and over and over again. How people can get excited about politics is beyond me. It's a carnival, and we're the rubes they're hired to fleece. Sad and tired is all I can say.”
livesimply on Nov 27, 2009 at 15:54:16
“Who's crying about 2000? You just seem to be gloating. BTW, remember Ken Star? What did the dems ever do to "tear down" Bush's presidency? Sorry, his failures are all his and your party's.”
FantasticFourFan on Nov 27, 2009 at 15:28:01
“Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq. That alone would have made this decade ten times better then what Bush did to it. Blame Clinton all you want, he didn't hold a gun to Bush's head forcing him to invade a country that didn't attack us and wasted resources and manpower and got the ME to hate us even more then they already did more or less creating recruitment for AL-Queda. Your messiah screwed up. So why don't you start taking some of that "personal responsibility" your always lecturing others about and admit it was your side fault.”
guntotinganglion on Nov 27, 2009 at 14:38:48
“Part 2 of 2
To which I would say, if he won, WHERE'S OSAMA BIN LADEN!!!??? That was job 1 when W needed it as a soundbite, but when it came time to capturing or killing the villain, HE FAILED and proceeded as if nothing was wrong at all. More than a trillion dollars spent, the economy collapsing around us, and OSAMA REMAINS FREE!!! Bin Laden's plan was to use the one tool he had against the US, and that is our PRIDE...the sin of pride. He kicked the 800 megaton gorilla, and it has rampaged ever since, draining the Treasury as it went.
Through 3/4's of Bush's Presidency, he got EVERYTHING he ever asked for, without question, from both sides of the aisle. It was only in the last 25% of his term that he saw ANY hindrance from the Dems, and that was minimal at best. For instance, Obama as a Senator sided with the Republicans more often than with the Dems. He might well be the least liberal Senator during his time as a Senator, but somehow, in the machinations of the extremist right wing fringe, that made him the MOST liberal Senator in the history of the Senate! Truth and reality not high on the list of priorities of neo-con nihilist right wing extremist fringe types...aka Republicans, i.e. YOU.”
guntotinganglion on Nov 27, 2009 at 14:38:34
“Part 1 of 2
"The fact that the Dem/lib section of the country did their best to hinder, obstruct, and tear down the president"
This is a load of you know what, cause immediately after 9/11, Bush had the highest approval ratings of any President in living memory. It was he who destroyed the Presidency, not the so called "Dem/lib section of the country", whatever that is in your addled history lesson. It was his obsessive/compulsive need to tear this country apart that brought this decade onto the list as the worst EVER! A President goes out of his way to illegally start two wars at the same time, with quite literally no plan on how to win/end them....and thus it was when he left office with the job NOT DONE! Bush, in life, has always been a job half done...a rich kid who always had Daddy to fix things for him, until of course, he did something that Daddy couldn't fix. There's no winning those wars, and there never has been...Bush never intended for them to end, and in this he has been remarkably successful.”
jbell1652 on Nov 27, 2009 at 13:32:49
“The Repubs tried to claim Clinton's success in the 90's was a direct result of Reagans, "trickle-down economics". Now you're saying the failing of Bush is a result of Clinton's success. Funny, the 80's = failure, 90's = success, 00's = failure, but those Dems are going to be the country's downfall.”
pinkyboo on Nov 27, 2009 at 12:49:42
“The Dem's did not try to tear down shrub- justified critique of a total d00uchebaggie who does deserve the honor of being called the worst president in American history.
“Now they've given us OB, who has been and is trying to "make over" the U.S into something that will be "acceptable" to the Europeans. My question is if the Europeans were so wise and so mindful of our best interests why did we leave several hundred thousand of our boys buried under their grass...TWICE within 30 years?? And the only "gratitude" they've shown has been to thumb their noses at us--regardless of who was president. THAT is what is unacceptable. Of course, the present working definition of "liberal" DOESN'T include the concept of "open minded" or "tolerant of others views". Don't think so? Then I invite you to read what current "liberals" post concerning ANY view that doesn't damn Bush or exalt OB.”
Blink2X on Nov 28, 2009 at 14:29:46
guntotinganglion on Nov 27, 2009 at 15:07:32
“Blah blah blah. OB was democratically elected, and he won the popular vote along with the electoral vote. Also, if Europe is so bad, why did we sacrifice hundreds of thousands of our best and brightest to save them?
Do you know how to do anything but complain?”
ydrittmann on Nov 27, 2009 at 14:28:24
“I'll take the bait. I'm less than happy with OB because of coddling Wall Street, but only a fool wouldn't damn Bush.”
RWS5000 on Nov 27, 2009 at 12:31:12
“As of 1230, the first half of my post is still under review though there is nothing controversial or mean-spirited in it. I have seen MUCH worse posted by libs that wasn't delayed.”
“Sorry for chopping my post up so much, should have went in reverse rather than from the top. Evidently too many cold nights on top of too many cold mountains in my AF career (24 years) and my fingers don't work quite right any more, any way!!”
Nonpartay on Nov 28, 2009 at 04:53:24
“Your respect for the Commander-in-Chief is not working quite right either. You might consider that the next time you post all this stuff against the president of your country.”
How many jobs is a new government program that is going to cost MUCH more than the 800-900 BILLION being bandied about now going to create? If the program is so good, why are they projecting about 12-15 million who won't be covered by it--even though these people need coverage and if the need is so great NOW why is implementation being delayed 5 or 6 YEARS? If the program is so good, why aren't the congress and president being included in it, after all, if it's "good enough" for Joe Average American then it should be good enough for the ruling elite too, don't you think?? (ALL I expect to see in response is the typical knee-jerk lib reaction to anyone who doesn't worship at the altar of OB.) Finally, an observation--hilarious to me--, if one of the dictionary definitions of "liberal' is "open-minded", "tolerant of others views" etc, why are they so close-minded and intolerant of people who don't agree with them?”
I DON'T like OB..but then I didn't like McCain either and consider the choice of Palin as VP to be the most ill-thought out political move I've ever seen, even worse than Ferraro was for the Dems. NO "healing" will occurr until BOTH extremes are recognized for the bigoted, selfish people they are. The "my way or the highway" attitude they espouse doesn't fit into the let's look at it and come up with something that REALLY works process that is needed. Case in point: Health Care. Why do we need to totally scrap plans, existing support and the processes we have now--which something like 80% who have care are satisfied with--to help 12-15 million or so people who, for whatever reason, don't have or don't want coverage? doesn't it make MORE sense to build on what we have by ending common industry practices, prior conditions, etc, and making long-term or catastrophic issues a joint 50/50 gov/industry responsibility? The Dem approach is to not only throw the baby out with the bath water but to gut the entire house at the same time. If you think that's a good idea then you probably have good answers to the following 3 questions:”
“WHAT!!!! MSM actually finding something about OB they didn't like??? What story? What sentence?? What "discouraging words"?? Don"t they KNOW that it is a sin to say anything against the anointed?? OH YEE OB-enthralled minions take a deep breath, take another, now take anot...Oh, sorry--too many deep breaths and you may clear your heads enough to see a glimmer of what the people who DON'T like OB see in him. (Must be happening on its own--look at approval ratings: below 50% and still dropping.) (Fast.) Indications are that he is being abandoned by the swing voters who don't seem to be liking what they see coming from him and the Dems. For the record..I'm one of the INDEPENDANT voters that everyone seems to be doing their best to ignore even though we usually make or break elections.”
Pupadup4oBama on Nov 28, 2009 at 12:40:49
“sounds like someone needs their binkie and a nap.”
Promisin1 on Nov 27, 2009 at 14:52:08
“So much to correct. So little time. Try using Google instead of listening to lies and half truths and buying into them. You would not be making these statements if you used Google to check the facts. I personally use Google and factcheck.org.”
trishinpitt on Nov 27, 2009 at 14:12:44
“You are typing all of this on the HuffPo site... I want you to take a look at all the articles that Arianna writes. I defy you to find very many positive articles about the "anointed" one (by the way.. calling him this adds sooooo much to your "unbiased" credibility).
I'm not sure where you get this idea that the so called "Liberal" media is being kind to Obama. They are scrutinizing his every move and decision. I only wish they had been so thorough during the Bush/Cheney years....
As a military man, you should be glad that the COMMANDER IN CHIEF is taking some time to evaluate the opinions of his military and diplomatic advisers and making a well thought out decision about the future of our troops in harm's way. Unfortunately, at this point, whatever decision he makes will be so vilified by all sides that it will come out negatively against him... the old "damned if he does, damned if he doesn't"..... Lucky George Bush would step up and say "You're either with us or against us"... and no one in the media batted an eye.... and here Obama is actually trying to be deliberative and smart and he gets punished by both sides for it.”