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

[Taichiliberal]

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.

A little history lesson for you:

The CIA helped orchestrate the overthrow of Iran's elected leader and installed the Shah Pahvil and his henchmen, the Savak. Oppression lead to a revolt by the strongest organized...unfortunately the fundamentalist under Kohmeni

The Baathist party was assisted in it's creation by our CIA. Hussein's rise to power as a dictator was not pretty...nor was his reign. The USA assisted him in his 8 year war against Iran (after the Shah got the boot) with supplies and materials for those WMD's. Rumsfelds visit was about business for that pipeline concession, NOT about the Kurds getting gassed. Under Reagan/Bush, Iraq was taken OFF the terrorist sponsor list. When Bush 41 came into power, Iraq suddenly became an enemy when it went to blows with Kuwait over disputed oil drilling rights and a billing due on loans to Iraq for the iran/iraq war. So Rumsfeld's visit, and the machinations of the Reagan Bush era had NOTHINg to do with humanity. Those are the FACTS!

As for your erroneous take on Clinton....you should note that the Shrub was talking with the TALIBAN within 1 year of the 9/11 attack. The Taliban controlled Afghanistan was an enemy of America at the time.

And during the Cold War, the US was annually shipping wheat to the Soviet Union.

And Nixon "talked" with China.

So once again, you rely on neocon ideology rather than historical, documented FACT to make your assertions....a pity.

 

[Taichiliberal]

All you did was link to the post were you made a baseless accusation; the post that I called you to task for. A lie...or you're too ignorant to understand what you read 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.

There you have it folks....once taken to task and unable to defend his assertions, Southie does what every defeated neocon does....lies and repeats himself.

Goodnight Gracie!

 

[DamnYankee]

A little history lesson for you:

The CIA helped orchestrate the overthrow of Iran's elected leader and installed the Shah Pahvil and his henchmen, the Savak. Oppression lead to a revolt by the strongest organized...unfortunately the fundamentalist under Kohmeni

The Baathist party was assisted in it's creation by our CIA. Hussein's rise to power as a dictator was not pretty...nor was his reign. The USA assisted him in his 8 year war against Iran (after the Shah got the boot) with supplies and materials for those WMD's. Rumsfelds visit was about business for that pipeline concession, NOT about the Kurds getting gassed. Under Reagan/Bush, Iraq was taken OFF the terrorist sponsor list. When Bush 41 came into power, Iraq suddenly became an enemy when it went to blows with Kuwait over disputed oil drilling rights and a billing due on loans to Iraq for the iran/iraq war. So Rumsfeld's visit, and the machinations of the Reagan Bush era had NOTHINg to do with humanity. Those are the FACTS!

As for your erroneous take on Clinton....you should note that the Shrub was talking with the TALIBAN within 1 year of the 9/11 attack. The Taliban controlled Afghanistan was an enemy of America at the time.

And during the Cold War, the US was annually shipping wheat to the Soviet Union.

And Nixon "talked" with China.

So once again, you rely on neocon ideology rather than historical, documented FACT to make your assertions....a pity.

No one doubts that Ahmajinedad rigged this past election in Iran and that he should be overthrow. History repeats itself. You Liberals whine if kids pray in American schools yet you don't mind if religious zealots steal elections in Iran.

Delivery of a nation's natural resources (oil pipeline) to fuel its economy is certainly a humanitarian goal. It is your opinion that it is not. Perhaps you'd rather see starving Iranians scrambling for bowls of porridge from a UNICEF truck but self-sufficiency and national wealth is a true humanitarian goal, as well as a way to develop potential allies.

You're attempt to equate Clinton's recent actions in China with Nixon's back in the 70's is disingenuous at best.

 

[DamnYankee]

There you have it folks....once taken to task and unable to defend his assertions, Southie does what every defeated neocon does....lies and repeats himself.

Goodnight Gracie!

Dooood your link here:

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.

points to where you quoted this:

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.

And that's simply the post that set you off on your latest baseless accusation that I am calling you to the carpet for:

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.

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.

 

[uscitizen]

Yall left out that the daddy of the Shah that we installed in Iran, was a Hitler crony during the war.

 

[Damocles]

Yall left out that the daddy of the Shah that we installed in Iran, was a Hitler crony during the war.

My father was a Hell's Angels full member, does this mean that I now deal drugs and ride Harleys? It's stupid to judge people on what their father has done.

 

[Cancel5]

My father was a Hell's Angels full member, does this mean that I now deal drugs and ride Harleys? It's stupid to judge people on what their father has done.

Mine was banker, I did follow in his steps for a bit, then I became a mother, the most rewarding job I will ever have...

 

[Minister of Truth]

My father was a Hell's Angels full member, does this mean that I now deal drugs and ride Harleys? It's stupid to judge people on what their father has done.

You may not ride Harley's, but that half-off shipment of coke you sent me last week for being a valued customer was kickass!! Thanks, Damo!

 

[Cancel5]

You may not ride Harley's, but that half-off shipment of coke you sent me last week for being a valued customer was kickass!! Thanks, Damo!

I got my Viagra, too!

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
A little history lesson for you:

The CIA helped orchestrate the overthrow of Iran's elected leader and installed the Shah Pahvil and his henchmen, the Savak. Oppression lead to a revolt by the strongest organized...unfortunately the fundamentalist under Kohmeni

The Baathist party was assisted in it's creation by our CIA. Hussein's rise to power as a dictator was not pretty...nor was his reign. The USA assisted him in his 8 year war against Iran (after the Shah got the boot) with supplies and materials for those WMD's. Rumsfelds visit was about business for that pipeline concession, NOT about the Kurds getting gassed. Under Reagan/Bush, Iraq was taken OFF the terrorist sponsor list. When Bush 41 came into power, Iraq suddenly became an enemy when it went to blows with Kuwait over disputed oil drilling rights and a billing due on loans to Iraq for the iran/iraq war. So Rumsfeld's visit, and the machinations of the Reagan Bush era had NOTHINg to do with humanity. Those are the FACTS!

As for your erroneous take on Clinton....you should note that the Shrub was talking with the TALIBAN within 1 year of the 9/11 attack. The Taliban controlled Afghanistan was an enemy of America at the time.

And during the Cold War, the US was annually shipping wheat to the Soviet Union.

And Nixon "talked" with China.

So once again, you rely on neocon ideology rather than historical, documented FACT to make your assertions....a pity.

No one doubts that Ahmajinedad rigged this past election in Iran and that he should be overthrow. History repeats itself. You Liberals whine if kids pray in American schools yet you don't mind if religious zealots steal elections in Iran.

My God, you just IGNORED what I previously wrote and rambled on about something else.....you just can't admit that you were wrong on your previous point. Grow up!

Delivery of a nation's natural resources (oil pipeline) to fuel its economy is certainly a humanitarian goal. WHAT?!!?? Hussein was gassing his people, what YOU neocon's swore was grounds for invasion....yet to EXCUSE Reagan/Bush/Rumsfeld ignoring the human carnage for PROFIT, you pan this drivel. Damn, you're pathetic. It is your opinion that it is not. Perhaps you'd rather see starving Iranians scrambling for bowls of porridge from a UNICEF truck but self-sufficiency and national wealth is a true humanitarian goal, as well as a way to develop potential allies. What are you smoking?!!?? Go back and READ, you simpleton. IRAQ.....then Iran. Two different countries with the common thread of America supporting dictators in their history. FACTS that disprove your ignorant assertions.

You're attempt to equate Clinton's recent actions in China with Nixon's back in the 70's is disingenuous at best.

Stop lying or get an adult to explain what has transpired. YOU made some assinine assertion about Clinton dealing with dictators...I pointed out America's HISTORY of dealing with AND supporting dictators. FACTS, nothing disingenuous about them. You're attempt to demonize Clinton's rescuing two Americans from harsh prison sentences (on Obama's watch) not only reeks of neocon sour grapes, it also exposes your incredible ignorance of history and how it applies to present day.

All you can do is just repeat your lies and ignore what has transpired. You're done.

 

[DamnYankee]

Stop lying or get an adult to explain what has transpired. YOU made some assinine assertion about Clinton dealing with dictators...I pointed out America's HISTORY of dealing with AND supporting dictators. FACTS, nothing disingenuous about them. You're attempt to demonize Clinton's rescuing two Americans from harsh prison sentences (on Obama's watch) not only reeks of neocon sour grapes, it also exposes your incredible ignorance of history and how it applies to present day.

All you can do is just repeat your lies and ignore what has transpired. You're done.

Wow. Leave it to a liberal to do exactly what he accuses me of. EXACTLY. *shrug*

 

[apple0154]

Stop lying or get an adult to explain what has transpired. YOU made some assinine assertion about Clinton dealing with dictators...I pointed out America's HISTORY of dealing with AND supporting dictators. FACTS, nothing disingenuous about them. You're attempt to demonize Clinton's rescuing two Americans from harsh prison sentences (on Obama's watch) not only reeks of neocon sour grapes, it also exposes your incredible ignorance of history and how it applies to present day.

All you can do is just repeat your lies and ignore what has transpired. You're done.

I can see the neo-con point of view. Clinton goes over there, chats a bit, comes back with the two journalists. Dull, dull, dull.

Where is the saber rattling? The threats of war? The bombs? The mass killings?

As Archie Bunker told Meathead when Meathead talked about peace, "If everyone thought that way you couldn't get a decent war off the ground."

 

[DamnYankee]

I can see the neo-con point of view. Clinton goes over there, chats a bit, comes back with the two journalists. Dull, dull, dull....

But what did Obama promise Kim Jong Il, and what impact will it have on the safety of other Americans from being held hostage?

 

[LadyT]

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.

I can definitely agree to that. A lot of the people that are opposing him are doing so despite their own interests and logic. There is no reasoning with them and any middle road that is taking to try to appease them now will leave his base pissed off, something that's not comprehensive, and something that will ultimately not work which will then just be used as political ammo for the next round. The only upside for Obama is to stick to his guns and push through exactly what he set out to do. Despite an incompetent congress.

 

[Sammy Jankis]

I can definitely agree to that. A lot of the people that are opposing him are doing so despite their own interests and logic. There is no reasoning with them and any middle road that is taking to try to appease them now will leave his base pissed off, something that's not comprehensive, and something that will ultimately not work which will then just be used as political ammo for the next round. The only upside for Obama is to stick to his guns and push through exactly what he set out to do. Despite an incompetent congress.

democracy is a bitch, ain't it. You would prefer a dictatorship, dick-tater.

 

[DamnYankee]

...

LOL "Obama playing chess". You dummy it's typical Chicago style gang politics.

 

[apple0154]

But what did Obama promise Kim Jong Il, and what impact will it have on the safety of other Americans from being held hostage?

Oh, i don't know. Maybe he told Kim Jong that the US is not going to pull a stunt like the former leaders did regarding Iraq? Maybe he told him the US is under new management meaning they won't maim and kill thousands of his people under the guise of helping them?

As for the safety of other Americans maybe Clinton got the message across that Americans are not war-mongering savages, the view Bush delighted in putting forward with his cowboy style, gun-slinging rhetoric?

Or maybe he just said Hillary would do a follow up visit?

 

[DamnYankee]

Oh, i don't know. Maybe he told Kim Jong that the US is not going to pull a stunt like the former leaders did regarding Iraq? Maybe he told him the US is under new management meaning they won't maim and kill thousands of his people under the guise of helping them?

As for the safety of other Americans maybe Clinton got the message across that Americans are not war-mongering savages, the view Bush delighted in putting forward with his cowboy style, gun-slinging rhetoric?

Or maybe he just said Hillary would do a follow up visit?

In other words: 'It's OK to pursue nuclear missiles and shoot them over Japan and towards the US, we're not going to do anything about it." Brilliant foreign policy.

 

[Cancel5]

In other words: 'It's OK to pursue nuclear missiles and shoot them over Japan and towards the US, we're not going to do anything about it." Brilliant foreign policy.

I don't mind as long as he doesn't hit anything.

 

[Cancel5]

I don't mind as long as he doesn't hit anything.

Me in particular!