Obama On Health Care: A Comprehensive Betrayal – Where Do We Go From Here?

I can see it now, we will end up getting nothing but a law that everyone has to buy healthcare. Talk about a captive customer base.
 
Yeah and they call themselves the Democratic Party, a lie in itself. That's why I call them the Democrat Party.
 
Southern Man said:
Bush killed Saddam because he mass murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. Of course you got it backwards.

Yet you liberals murder millions of babies in abortions every year and that's OK.
Click to expand...

You are spot on except for one thing. The Iraqi people tried, convicted, sentenced, and put Saddam to death for genocide and other crimes.

Whereas pro abortionists offer the unborn baby no such opportunity. They are put to death 97% of the time merely for being unwanted.
 
Ice Dancer said:
You are spot on except for one thing. The Iraqi people tried, convicted, sentenced, and put Saddam to death for genocide and other crimes.

Whereas pro abortionists offer the unborn baby no such opportunity. They are put to death 97% of the time merely for being unwanted.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Tiller = Infanticide.
 
Southern Man said:
Check:

PH2009080902547.jpg
Click to expand...

Jeezus, you really are a willfully ignorant neocon parrot, aren't you? Did you bother to READ the information available, or do you just look at the pictures.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/


EARTH TO SOUTHIE.....Clinton was an ex-President on a mission to SAVE American citizens from imprisonment. Rumsfeld was an envoy for Reagan to do BUSINESS about pipeline concessions with a man who had just used WMD's on his own people.

Clinton/Obama - two Americans saved from a decade of hard prison labor.

Rumsfeld/Reagan - commercial interests upheld with a passing commentary on mini-genocide against his own people.

Big Difference...but then again it takes an intelligent person with a grasp of recent history to notice that.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Once again, you ignore what someone writes and repeat yourself.....you're insipid stubborness and ability to substitute your supposition and conjecture as fact is truly amazing sometimes. But like I use to treat a 2 grade class, I'll treat you:

Pay attention:

I would have preferred a Edwards/Richardson ticket in 2008, but that self destructed.

McCain was NOT the McCain of a decade ago.....hell, even your neocon cabal was not fully behind him (BUT YOU VOTED FOR HIM ANYWAY, DIDN'T YOU BUNKY?). But I was not about to vote for a continuation of the PNAC agenda on full tilt boogey and dominating the GOP party.

And there were NO 3rd Party candidates on the docket in 2008.

Hence, Obama gets my vote. BAC'S article may have points of hyperbole, but there are valid concerns and points within. IMHO, Obama is playing chess during a street fight. It's time for the American's that voted for him and the Dems now in power to remind these folk what we put them in office for.
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
I voted for the most conservative candidate in the GOP primary: Keyes. I then voted for the most conservative candidate for the general election: McCain. You will vote for Obama in 2012 because he's black.
Click to expand...


And there you have it, folks. Southie demonstrates a total lack of independent thought.
Compare his explanation to mine. Then read his final sentence. Southie continually demonstrates the traits of a stubborn, petulant child....and that's an insult to such children because at least they are acting honestly with the intelligence level that's expected of them. Southie has no excuse.....so much more to pity him.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Well, to be frank there is a bit of hyperbole in your article....but essentially it points to a truism.....Obama is playing chess while everyone else is in a street fight. The people that put him in office need to use that same drive to wake him and the Dems up that we put them there for a specific purpose...which is NOT to negotiate with the PNAC agenda of the neocon GOP.

There are a lot of things that won't be/can't be overturned/fixed in a day (unless you have a full blown civil war, IMHO), but the olive branch is NOT working. Time for Obama to draw the line in the sand....and for us to make him do so. I've already put my gov't reps on notice...I hope others follow.
Click to expand...

blackascoal said:
Hyperbole aside, it's that truism you point out that matters my brother. Not quite, pal....hyperbole is one of the roots of the unnecessary problems about this debate. Essentially, spreading exaggerations, half-truths, distortions and opinion substituting for facts is what lends to all the hysteria and anger, which clouds the real issues. One of the reasons I like discussing the issues is to cut through the BS and get to the heart of the matter. Ditch the hyperbole, things get easier.

At some point the left will recognize that the Democratic Party does not repect them .. including Obama. There are few real proponents of the values of the left within his administration. In fact, there are more conservatives around him than the left. This is no accident and I said this would be the case even before he was elected. Which frankly was not surprising to anyone who followed his campaign.....based on sheer observation, Obama was walking into a hornet's nest of stone wall opposition. Knowing that his very skin color was putting the majority popultion on edge, his strategy was to incorporate the enemy and make them work for him (as he stated in no uncertain terms during one of his televised interviews). I personally think that move was folly....the next 3 years will tell. The Dem party has at one point become nearly indistinguishable from the GOP in recent years.....if the neocon/PNAC movement hadn't come along the few differences would have been negligible. When Nader ran (and I voted for him), his campaign exposed just how corrupt each party was. Hopefully, with the country in dire straits, a third party gains strength (if they are organizing on the grassroots level).

Obama is a centrist, and like all centrists, he's not interested in causes, only in getting elected.This has been his way since he first ran for office. If you want to see what Obama is, research his race that he lost against Congressman Bobby Rush. He doesn't even like the left .. doesn't like civil rights leaders. .. but that should be obvious. Jesse knew that .. which is why he wanted to snatch his balls off. Problem is, he doesn't have any.

That's a LOT of supposition and conjecture......heated exchanges/vehemence between candidates is not uncommon....nor are bad feelings from their supporters. Obama doesn't like to lose....who does? And since when does Jesse still have any credibility, given his conduct over the years? Columnist Charles Etheridge III has had a few choice words for him, I can tell you.

I predicted all that Obama has become before he was elected .. which is why I didn't vote for him. In fact, I was calling him Obambi because I knew he was a pussy. See my above responses....evidently you don't like the man and haven't for a LONG time. Hey, that's your preference......and the first 6 months give credence to your attitude....and I voted for Obama as the lesser of two evils, not because I was overly impressed with his record. But I am NOT willing to throw out the baby with the bath water for 6 months of dealing with the slop leftover by the Shrub & company (not to mention a country that could easily be lead/provoked to mini-riots under these dire conditions).

Now that we have him, what are democrats going to do with him? My prediction .. NOTHING. He will continue to meander somewhere in the mushy middle and the republicans will continue to beat him and the democrats up. The Democratic Party is the biggest collection of wimps I have ever seen. I would be fucking embarrassed to call myself a goddamn democrat.

Actually, the Democrats are doing something with him....or more precisely TO him. The Bluedog Democrats are being exceptional beligerent and obtuse. Obama needs to take a few pages from Slick Willy's play book. Like him or hate him, the Slickster knew how to be a take charge President when needed.

The good news is Obama is already losing support from many who ran to the polls only listening to the beat .. never hearing the actual words. Unions have put his ass on notice. Yep, and remember how Obama kept saying that he needs the help of the people to get the job done? Well, the people are getting it together and putting him on notice.....the question now is will the Dem party listen to the people, and will they and Obama follow suit or continue the same wimpy course?

Come 2010 the democrats will have less control of Congress and will bend over and drop their pants even further for the evil of the right.

A prediction...not a certainty or reality.

This is American politics as usual .. easy to predict.
Click to expand...

Not 100% so, as the discussion above shows.
 
Taichiliberal said:
And there you have it, folks. Southie demonstrates a total lack of independent thought.
Compare his explanation to mine. Then read his final sentence. Southie continually demonstrates the traits of a stubborn, petulant child....and that's an insult to such children because at least they are acting honestly with the intelligence level that's expected of them. Southie has no excuse.....so much more to pity him.
Click to expand...
Lack of independent thought to choose your candidates on political philosophy instead of skin color? LOL
 
Taichiliberal said:
Jeezus, you really are a willfully ignorant neocon parrot, aren't you? Did you bother to READ the information available, or do you just look at the pictures.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/


EARTH TO SOUTHIE.....Clinton was an ex-President on a mission to SAVE American citizens from imprisonment. Rumsfeld was an envoy for Reagan to do BUSINESS about pipeline concessions with a man who had just used WMD's on his own people.

Clinton/Obama - two Americans saved from a decade of hard prison labor.

Rumsfeld/Reagan - commercial interests upheld with a passing commentary on mini-genocide against his own people.

Big Difference...but then again it takes an intelligent person with a grasp of recent history to notice that.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it Obama that said that we should be talking to our enemies? *shrug*
 
Southern Man said:
Lack of independent thought to choose your candidates on political philosophy instead of skin color? LOL
Click to expand...

There you have it folks....this poor fool repeats an accusation that he cannot prove beyond his own worthless opinion....he ignores all other information, ignores answers to his questions. Southie has demonstrated time and again that he is intellectually incapable of an honest and logical discussion with anyone who can effectively challenge (and/or disprove) his beliefs, statements and assertions. He's become nothing more than a bitter defeated neocon just taking up space.
 
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Jeezus, you really are a willfully ignorant neocon parrot, aren't you? Did you bother to READ the information available, or do you just look at the pictures.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/


EARTH TO SOUTHIE.....Clinton was an ex-President on a mission to SAVE American citizens from imprisonment. Rumsfeld was an envoy for Reagan to do BUSINESS about pipeline concessions with a man who had just used WMD's on his own people.

Clinton/Obama - two Americans saved from a decade of hard prison labor.

Rumsfeld/Reagan - commercial interests upheld with a passing commentary on mini-genocide against his own people.

Big Difference...but then again it takes an intelligent person with a grasp of recent history to notice that.
Click to expand...

Southern Man said:
Wasn't it Obama that said that we should be talking to our enemies? *shrug*
Click to expand...

Yes, to negotiate peaceful settlements, to influence better conditions for humanity.

As the information above shows, the Reagan/Bush folk weren't about that.

*Shrug* Guess you didn't understand that.
 
Taichiliberal said:
There you have it folks....this poor fool repeats an accusation that he cannot prove beyond his own worthless opinion....he ignores all other information, ignores answers to his questions. Southie has demonstrated time and again that he is intellectually incapable of an honest and logical discussion with anyone who can effectively challenge (and/or disprove) his beliefs, statements and assertions. He's become nothing more than a bitter defeated neocon just taking up space.
Click to expand...
Basically you claimed that I was lacking in independent thought because I choose candidates based on political philosophy. You can choose to explain this, or call me a names and talk to yourself as you seem to be doing.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Yes, to negotiate peaceful settlements, to influence better conditions for humanity.

As the information above shows, the Reagan/Bush folk weren't about that.

*Shrug* Guess you didn't understand that.
Click to expand...

Its your opinion that Reagan's dealings in the Mid-East weren't to influence better conditions for humanity, actions that potentiality could have defeated the radical Islamic government of Iran. Yet Clinton negotiates with a terrorist, breaking a long-standing US policy, which purpose is to reduce the threat of future terrorist kidnappings, and in your opinion that's perfectly OK.
 
Southern Man said:
Basically you claimed that I was lacking in independent thought because I choose candidates based on political philosophy. Only after your explanation...which you used to try and counter my oft repeated explanation as to whom I voted for and why. You REFUSE to deal with my explanation, and just repeat your accusation. So I just did a logical comparison, and you came up short. TFB. You can choose to explain this, or call me a names and talk to yourself as you seem to be doing.
Click to expand...

It's already been explained [ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=497399&postcount=48"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Obama On Health Care: A Comprehensive Betrayal – Where Do We Go From Here?[/ame]
....you just refuse to acknowledge it....much like you continue to make a false accusation. I'm not going to waste time going around in circles because of your insipid stubborness. Grow up Southie.
 
Taichiliberal said:
It's already been explained Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - Obama On Health Care: A Comprehensive Betrayal – Where Do We Go From Here?
....you just refuse to acknowledge it....much like you continue to make a false accusation. I'm not going to waste time going around in circles because of your insipid stubborness. Grow up Southie.
Click to expand...
All you did was link to the post were you made a baseless accusation; the post that I called you to task for. So again: Basically you claimed that I was lacking in independent thought because I choose candidates based on political philosophy. You can choose to explain this, or call me a names and talk to yourself as you seem to be doing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top