Obama - not as awesome as we thought?

retro said:
The only thing I've seen you contribute in this thread is taking shots at me because you disagree with me. Furthermore, I wasn't whining, I made a statement that the pathetic and petty insults should be dropped. I was accused of using "talking points", which I stated was not the case.

But hey, you keep going after me instead of actually contributing anything.
Click to expand...

You don't get it. My contribution to this particular thread located in a forum about discussing issues was pointing out that whining about being insulted is pretty weak when you choose to call others names in the process when you were not called any names to begin with. The principle stands on it's merits.
 
Tim said:
If you are using the term, "government take-over of health care", then you are either
A. Using a talking point
B. Exaggerating you point
C. Uneducated and don't comprehend what a take-over really means.
Click to expand...
or

D. He sees this as the President's stated "first step" also called the "transition step" to a single-payer healthcare system, the repeatedly stated goal of President Obama.
 
Accountable said:
or

D. He sees this as the President's stated "first step" also called the "transition step" to a single-payer healthcare system, the repeatedly stated goal of President Obama.
Click to expand...

yup

If the govt knows one thing it is how to get away with passing stuff and that is by doing it in increments.

A single payer medicare for everybody system would be far better than this pile of shit the democrats are gonna pass
 
Accountable said:
or

D. He sees this as the President's stated "first step" also called the "transition step" to a single-payer healthcare system, the repeatedly stated goal of President Obama.
Click to expand...

Then this would be the first step in an attempted government take-over.

This bill would not in any way shape or form BE a government take-over. Like I said, to use that term is nothing more than repeating a talking point created to scare the uninformed.





You guys just can't admit that this is not a government take-over... you can't even see talking points for what they are anymore. And you say your not republicans. :humm:
 
Tim said:
Then this would be the first step in an attempted government take-over.

This bill would not in any way shape or form BE a government take-over. Like I said, to use that term is nothing more than repeating a talking point created to scare the uninformed.





You guys just can't admit that this is not a government take-over... you can't even see talking points for what they are anymore. And you say your not republicans. :humm:
Click to expand...

I am far from being a republican

I favor legalizing drugs and prostitution

I would like to see all religions kept out of politics

If the democrats were fiscally responsible I could support some of their stuff

But they are all about expanding the govt. The adore the nanny state. They know best after all
 
Tim said:
Then this would be the first step in an attempted government take-over.

This bill would not in any way shape or form BE a government take-over. Like I said, to use that term is nothing more than repeating a talking point created to scare the uninformed.





You guys just can't admit that this is not a government take-over... you can't even see talking points for what they are anymore. And you say your not republicans. :humm:
Click to expand...
You don't have to be a republican to see that the principles our nation was built upon are being systematically discarded. You need only pull your head out of your ass.
 
Tim said:
Then this would be the first step in an attempted government take-over.

This bill would not in any way shape or form BE a government take-over. Like I said, to use that term is nothing more than repeating a talking point created to scare the uninformed.





You guys just can't admit that this is not a government take-over... you can't even see talking points for what they are anymore. And you say your not republicans. :humm:
Click to expand...

With the passage of this bill, the government will be taking over how the health care industry is run, how insurance companies have to do business, etc., etc., etc. They're not taking over by making it single payer, but they're taking over by controlling the entire industry. If you can't see how that equates to a takeover, then there's nothing I can say at this point... because you're a Democrat.
 
Wyndex said:
because being in debt or being out of debt really matters?

we were out of debt with Clinton, no one gave a fuck then. IJS
money isnt the issue if it really was thered be more productivity to solve that problem from both parties
Click to expand...
We weren't out of debt under Clinton, we just didn't get further into the debt we already had :dunno
 
Charles said:
Obama has committed his second impeachable and criminal bribery in just two weeks time. First he bribed a democrat to not run against Specter in Pennslyvania by promising him he would make him secretary of the navy if he dropped out of the race. That is a felony.

Now he has congressman Jim Matheson at the white house to convince him to change his vote on the healthcare monstrosity and lo and behold, he just coincidently appointed the congressman's brother to the federal bench on the same day as that meeting.

Obama turned down Scott Matheson's request to be appointed to that position back in June. He wasn't good enough then but now that Obama needs another vote he gets the lifetime appointment.

"Whoever solicits or receives … any….thing of value, in consideration of the promise of support or use of influence in obtaining for any person any appointive office or place under the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both." -- 18 USC Sec. 211 -- Bribery, Graft and Conflicts of Interest: Acceptance or solicitation to obtain appointive public office
Click to expand...
is this actually true? Would he be considered a felon?
 
Alien Allen said:
never has anything this remotely important or expensive passed by such partisan measures
Click to expand...

You do remember the partisan Bush years, (party line votes were are regular occurrence) and what I would argue is an incredibly expensive partisan War?

(I realize you are most likely going to come back and say the Democrats voted for the war, but what they passed was to give Bush the authority to go to war when all other options were exhausted. Stupid Democrats looking for cover, but instead of exhausting all efforts, Bush went right to war telling the U.N inspectors to get out because he did not want to wait.) Publicly Republicans supported this effort unconditionally.
 
Minor Axis said:
You do remember the partisan Bush years, (party line votes were are regular occurrence) and what I would argue is an incredibly expensive partisan War?

(I realize you are most likely going to come back and say the Democrats voted for the war, but what they passed was to give Bush the authority to go to war when all other options were exhausted. Stupid Democrats looking for cover, but instead of exhausting all efforts, Bush went right to war telling the U.N inspectors to get out because he did not want to wait.) Publicly Republicans supported this effort unconditionally.
Click to expand...

Do you mean the *incredibly* partisan war that 42% of the Democrat members of Congress voted for? The war that was (however illegally) authorized by legislation that Democrats not only voted for, but actually sponsored some of the legislation for?

Your line about how they only voted to give him the authority to go to war is a crock of shit. If they really wanted to stand up against it, then they shouldn't have voted for it at all. Hell, no member of Congress should have voted for it because they didn't have the Constitutional right to delegate the power of declaring war to the President in the first place. In addition, 6 Republicans in the house and 1 in the Senate voted no on the resolutions, so you can't claim it was unconditional. Granted, that was only about 4% of the Republicans in office at the time, but there were still some that actually realized that it was a bad idea, not to mention an unconstitutional one. But the Democrats that voted for it were all too eager to jump on the train claiming they had been lied to and misled once it came out that there weren't any WMD's that were found. But it doesn't matter... they didn't have the right to delegate that power to the President to begin with.

Contrast that with this piece of legislation that not a single Republican voted for... not one, at all. It wasn't even a true party line vote though, because there were Democrats that voted against it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top