Printable View
^ You're either a very poor troll are a very good retard.
That's right, it's all different now. And those criticizing are suddenly different.
The bush nazi artists were honest, hard-working, red-blooded Americans and the bambam nazi artists are bad, sinister, evil.
You're a fucking tool.
https://teakdoor.com/images/smilies1/You_Rock_Emoticon.gif
Casual? Hardly. And I think these signs make people think more about the h*ll Obama is leading them into.Quote:
Originally Posted by lysander
Lysander, Panama Hat:
Quote:
I wonder what the percentage of these semi-literate and ill-educated actually know about the health care issues or reform - or know about the Swastika and how it relates (???) to the topic.
Associated the National Socialist party (and its health care system?) with the current health care debate is definitly by uneducated people who don't read.Quote:
I wonder how those who lost relatives or friends to the Nazi regime feel about the casual use of the Swastika to smear the POTUS?
I've never studied the National Socialist health care policy in Germany.
I've never seen it used in the debate.
I have seen comparisons to the UK, Canada, and Sweden by politicians and health care providers in this discussion. These nations do not have origins nor influences from German Nazi National Socialism.
^ Oh. I watched part of a town hall today -- Tampa. Looked like the insiders were handpicked. All the Qs were handed in and read by a bumboy -- the Congressman answered each Q with "we've discussed that already."
Just talked to a friend who lives in upstate NY -- her Congresswoman cancelled their town halls. She is angry to the max.
Are you seriously suggesting that the current President of the United States proposes to commit genocide against his own countrymen? That he's considering putting them into concentration camps and murdering them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet GorgonCasual? Hardly. And I think these signs make people think more about the h*ll Obama is leading them into.Quote:
Originally Posted by lysander
^ No. I am referring to the "nazi"-like propaganda he spews and choke-control he wants over the country.
Change we can believe in!
Simplistic thinking produces simplistic explanationsQuote:
Originally Posted by lysanderAre you seriously suggesting that the current President of the United States proposes to commit genocide against his own countrymen? That he's considering putting them into concentration camps and murdering them?Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet GorgonCasual? Hardly. And I think these signs make people think more about the h*ll Obama is leading them into.Quote:
Originally Posted by lysander
Well yes, once HC reform is passed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Texpat
Bush will be remembered for the 'Patriot' Act, Obama for HC reform.
Then onwards to the next priority.
Whatever your views on it, it will stand as the most important legislation since Medicare.
Obama will be remembered for his inexperience, narcissism and ability to fek up the country in six months.
Given your track record Jettie, you have just confirmed that OB will go down in the annals of history as one of America's great Presidents. :)
Only by right-wing Faux News watchers (i.e. those that would think that no matter what).Quote:
Originally Posted by Jet Gorgon
So, no change there then. :)
HC reform is looking doubtful in its present form. Hard to predict what will happen.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
Medicare is a disaster, and it's the single biggest fiscal problem the USA has.
I don't have answers, but health care, including health care reform and Medicare is a disaster.
For all his swanky smoothness, he's sure looking rank and irritated lately.
Did he think the sheen and luster would carry him through his tenure the way a new car carries its owner through the first couple years?
I'm not ready to write off the president yet. But his brash arrogance we (TD) discussed during the primaries has shown considerable wear as of late.
^ I think he's trying to do too much. The more the gov does the mess it seems to create.
I'll stick with BO over the other choice for the last election.
And I'm still sour on the GOP after the Jewish Neo-cons, Iraq, and Medicare-D bill in 2006 which cost $17 Trilliong dollars - and the gov had $0 to fund it.
Just another example of where the Repubs are heading, The Party of No,………………………
YouTube - Shimkus embraces "party of no"
Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) wants you to say "no."
Just "no" in general, like as a response. To everything.
In fact, he's calling "no" the new Republican mantra.
"This is going to be our chant from now until election day," he boasted Thursday. "In fact, we've been saying 'no' for a long time. When President Obama was on the ballot, the Republican response was, 'Just say no!' When the Democrat leadership came to Washington saying let's bail out Wall Street, the Republican position was, 'Just say no!' When an omnibus bill was sent to us with billions of additional dollars of spending, 9,000 earmarks, the Republican position was, 'Just say no!'"
Of course, when it came to the bank bailouts, initiated by President George W. Bush, the Republican position was "yes, unreservedly!"
When it came to spending trillions to invade a country that had not attacked the United States, the Republican position was "yes, unequivocally!"
Link: The Raw Story » ‘Just say no to everything’ the new GOP chant?
And how did that work out for them again?Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth
He sounds like a petulant child; 'I'm going to say "no" to everything and stand in the corner holding my breath and banging my head on the wall!'Maybe they should be the 'Party of No... Sense of Irony or Hypocrisy'.Quote:
When the Democrat leadership came to Washington saying let's bail out Wall Street, the Republican position was, 'Just say no!' When an omnibus bill was sent to us with billions of additional dollars of spending, 9,000 earmarks, the Republican position was, 'Just say no!'"
Of course, when it came to the bank bailouts, initiated by President George W. Bush, the Republican position was "yes, unreservedly!"
When it came to spending trillions to invade a country that had not attacked the United States, the Republican position was "yes, unequivocally!"
"I think early on, a decision was made by the Republican leadership that said, 'Look, let's not give him a victory, maybe we can have a replay of 1993, '94, when Clinton came in, he failed on health care and then we won in the mid-term elections and we got the majority. And I think there are some folks who are taking a page out that playbook," the president said." - WaTime
One can only hope, can one?:rolleyes:
Hope springs eternal booner, but heres the main political reason I am confident HC reform is going to be passed before the mid term elections- the Dem's have the majority in both Houses, and historically a sitting government virtually always has their majority eroded at mid term elections. So given that fact, plus that this is probably Obamas biggest campaign promise, I am confident it will happen. In fact I am already looking beyond it- HC reform will be an ongoing process methinks, the current legislation just the critical opening salvo. Anyone knows that a country paying around double of other advanced nations for incomplete HC has a serious issue to be addressed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boon Mee
Ironically, the major Conservative 'opposition' that has to be won over are the Democrat 'blue dogs'. The GOP have just relinquished themselves to the party of "No", so apart from token lip service, can basically be ignored. It will be interesting to see how their performance in Opposition will play to the electorate at future elections.
Of course, Obamas Bailout package was passed without a single Republican vote too. Whilst I doubt I would agree with everything in there, your country would certainly be in a tailspin now if the government had done nothing- whereas it is in fact showing strong signs of emerging from Recession, and returning to seconomic growth. Once again, it will be interesting to see how this plays before the electorate.
Good post. No ammo. :D
That’s why I think (and others, but I can't remember where I read it, so I can not link it) Obama wants to bring some repubs into the fold (bipartisan). Obama knows later down the line adjustments will be needed and he’ll call on the same repubs to help him get legislation passed.Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
But Obama’s losing support (amongst Dems) while trying to please the few (maybe 3 Senators) republicans that might be swayed.
edit: 't
Can it get any funnier?
Talk-show host Sean Hannity, a vocal opponent of Barack Obama's policies, said today he would not rule out a bid for the presidency in 2012.
Egged on by radio colleague Bill Cunningham, Hannity said he would consider entering the front lines of the political fray if God directs him.
And then there’s this,…………
A new analysis by Public Policy Polling (D) finds that Sarah Palin is especially popular with a key Republican demographic: The Birthers.
Among those respondents in PPP's latest national poll who either said that President Obama was not born in the United States or were undecided, Palin had a 66% favorability rating. Of the other three Republicans that were tested in the poll, Mike Huckabee was in second place at 58%, then Newt Gingrich with 46%, and Mitt Romney was last with only 43% favorability.
Hannity, Palin, Gingrich considered by Repubs as candidates in 2012.
Not Crazy Enough
What's he expecting, a phone call? :confused:Quote:
if God directs him
'Hi Sean this is God, I endorse your candidacy'.
What a Ticket! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by S Landreth
Quote:
Originally Posted by sabang
I'm sure Obama would be so worried about his re-election . . .
Hannity, with God's blessing and Palin speaking in tongues to Beelzebub