Quit picking on Obama……
- Thread starter DaSleeper
- Start date
Yes, I would like to see us go back to a time when you actually had to work for what you got and did not live on other peoples charity unless absolutely necessary. Tired of seeing generations of welfare recipients. I hope you bowed your head when you mentioned Reagan. 
Yes, I would like to see us go back to a time when you actually had to work for what you got and did not live on other peoples charity unless absolutely necessary. Tired of seeing generations of welfare recipients. I hope you bowed your head when you mentioned Reagan.
Didn’t the rich pay taxes when Reagan was the Resident? Did he abolish taxes for the rich, (I am not aware that he did)? Did the poor not receive any welfare during Reagan years?
If you think that, you don’t know what you are talking about. You probably have some idolized version of how USA was like under Reagan. I assume under your Reagan utopia, the rich paid no taxes, the poor received no welfare.
Well, it you want to keep on believing that, that is your right I suppose. But the only society that I can think of where they did what you want (rich paid no taxes, poor received no welfare) would be Dark ages of Europe. Well, perhaps not even then. Sure the poor starved in the streets, they received no welfare, but rich paid plenty of taxes to support the lavish lifestyle of the king.
Perhaps hunting gathering society, the Garden of Eden? May be that is what you want to go back to, where everybody keeps what they hunt and gather.
ɐɯɐqo uo ƃuıʞɔıd uo ǝɹoɯ
ɐɯɐqo uo ƃuıʞɔıd uo ǝɹoɯ
YouTube - Liberal Caught Stealing Obama Birth Certificate Sign
ɐɯɐqo uo ƃuıʞɔıd uo ǝɹoɯ
YouTube - Liberal Caught Stealing Obama Birth Certificate Sign
August 13, 2009
47!
Gene Schwimmer
Rasmussen's latest overall approval rating for President Obama: 47% -- a new low for him.
Left-wing Bush-haters who soooooo despised him and felt, believe, just knew that Obama would be soooooo much better, would bring closure, unity, peace, love -- and above all, socialism -- to the oppressed and benighted American masses, will note that "the Messiah's" current approval rating, midway through His eighth month, is a mere twelve points above Bush's number, 35%, when Bush left office. And need I mention that Bush's number came after eight years of "objective press" savagery. Obama's comes after eight months of "objective press" puffery.
In other Rasmussen Poll news, Pat Toomey, predicted, a mere weeks ago, to be toast in 2010, now holds a double-digit lead over Arlen Specter, who, if these numbers hold, has as much chance of being re-elected senator of Pennsylvania, as that other traitor, Benedict Arnold, had of being elected prime minister of England. Maybe less. Add in Christopher Dodd's, Henry Reid's and (dare we dream?) Barbara Boxer's increasingly dismal prospects, and it appears that James Carville's prediction of 40 years of Democratic dominance might be a tad premature.
Republicans lead Democrats on Rasmussen's Generic Congressional Ballot for the seventh week in a row.
47!
Gene Schwimmer
Rasmussen's latest overall approval rating for President Obama: 47% -- a new low for him.
Left-wing Bush-haters who soooooo despised him and felt, believe, just knew that Obama would be soooooo much better, would bring closure, unity, peace, love -- and above all, socialism -- to the oppressed and benighted American masses, will note that "the Messiah's" current approval rating, midway through His eighth month, is a mere twelve points above Bush's number, 35%, when Bush left office. And need I mention that Bush's number came after eight years of "objective press" savagery. Obama's comes after eight months of "objective press" puffery.
In other Rasmussen Poll news, Pat Toomey, predicted, a mere weeks ago, to be toast in 2010, now holds a double-digit lead over Arlen Specter, who, if these numbers hold, has as much chance of being re-elected senator of Pennsylvania, as that other traitor, Benedict Arnold, had of being elected prime minister of England. Maybe less. Add in Christopher Dodd's, Henry Reid's and (dare we dream?) Barbara Boxer's increasingly dismal prospects, and it appears that James Carville's prediction of 40 years of Democratic dominance might be a tad premature.
Republicans lead Democrats on Rasmussen's Generic Congressional Ballot for the seventh week in a row.
Everything's Just Fine
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 8.13.09
WASHINGTON -- Allow me a word of encouragement to our president. Mr. Obama, you are doing just fine. You wanted to set a new tone in Washington, and you have. You wanted an open debate on healthcare, and you have it. Admittedly, the tone is astoundingly rancorous, and not incidentally your approval ratings continue to decline. Then too, support for your healthcare reform is dropping, especially among independents. Yet I believe you can take heart. You have roused the interest of the American people in you, the Democratic Party, the Congress, and healthcare. That is good news, at least for us conservatives. Again, you are doing fine. Ever larger numbers of Americans are alarmed by you, your party, the Congress, and your healthcare monstrosity. Mr. President, you are doing fine. Keep it up. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.
Truth be known, what else were we to expect from the new administration? In the Senate our president was the most left-wing member by a lot. That is a fact, clearly visible to those who followed his voting record. He is also the least experienced major-party presidential candidate in over a century. As for his experience before he entered upon his brief political career, he has never been in the private sector where he might have gained knowledge about profit margins, the difficulty of maintaining a workforce, or the burden of even a slight tax increase. His sole experience has been a fleeting period teaching law and the anomalous experience of being a community organizer, that is to say, a rabble-rouser who organizes needy people to pester governments and corporations for cash or services.
By R. Emmett Tyrrell, Jr. on 8.13.09
WASHINGTON -- Allow me a word of encouragement to our president. Mr. Obama, you are doing just fine. You wanted to set a new tone in Washington, and you have. You wanted an open debate on healthcare, and you have it. Admittedly, the tone is astoundingly rancorous, and not incidentally your approval ratings continue to decline. Then too, support for your healthcare reform is dropping, especially among independents. Yet I believe you can take heart. You have roused the interest of the American people in you, the Democratic Party, the Congress, and healthcare. That is good news, at least for us conservatives. Again, you are doing fine. Ever larger numbers of Americans are alarmed by you, your party, the Congress, and your healthcare monstrosity. Mr. President, you are doing fine. Keep it up. Let me know if there is anything I can do to help.
Truth be known, what else were we to expect from the new administration? In the Senate our president was the most left-wing member by a lot. That is a fact, clearly visible to those who followed his voting record. He is also the least experienced major-party presidential candidate in over a century. As for his experience before he entered upon his brief political career, he has never been in the private sector where he might have gained knowledge about profit margins, the difficulty of maintaining a workforce, or the burden of even a slight tax increase. His sole experience has been a fleeting period teaching law and the anomalous experience of being a community organizer, that is to say, a rabble-rouser who organizes needy people to pester governments and corporations for cash or services.
I never said the rich should not pay taxes, but you can go to far in taxing them or anybody. It is the rich that create jobs for everyone else. Tax the Bill Gates types to much and they take their ball and go someplace else to play. Gates almost took Microsoft to Canada till someone did the math. The Democrats are responsible for raising the cost of living in the past 2 1/2 years thus creating a larger class of poor. We were all living pretty good back then, the poor were at an affordable level. See the good old days are not that far back. Seriously you have to think, who or what class provides the job base in any country.
We were all living pretty good back then, the poor were at an affordable level. See the good old days are not that far back.
Certainly they are not that far back, ironsides. Why I assume USA was positively a paradise a little over two years ago, when Republicans had the control of everything. No doubt, Bush’s eight years were pure bliss, at least as far as you are concerned anyway.
Dot com meltdown of course was the fault of Clinton, Carter and Johnson. The current economic meltdown was the fault of Clinton, Carter and Obama.
No doubt you consider USA to be pure Hell, a third world country especially since January 2009. Are people dying in the street because of hunger? They probably are (according to you). They cannot be dying of disease (yet), since you have the most perfect health care system in the world (which Obama is going to convert into a third world system). Well have patience. In 2010, USA will become paradise again, when your party takes control of Senate and House. USA will become pure Heaven on earth when Joan of Ark wins the election in 2012.
Any economic meltdown that occurs during her eight years can always be blamed back on Obama, Clinton and Carter.
With any luck at all, Joan of Ark will get you people involved in two or three wars (Iran, North Korea) etc. (Bush got you in only two wars), and then it will really be the Kingdom of Jesus, the ultimate bliss in USA. Milk and honey will flow through the streets again, with chicken in every pot. Unemployment .1 % (or perhaps even zero?), inflation 0.1%.
As I said, you right wing extremists are really funny. In my opinion, anybody who claims that Bush years were pure Heaven on earth ought to have his head examined.
Certainly they are not that far back, ironsides. Why I assume USA was positively a paradise a little over two years ago, when Republicans had the control of everything. No doubt, Bush’s eight years were pure bliss, at least as far as you are concerned anyway.
Dot com meltdown of course was the fault of Clinton, Carter and Johnson. The current economic meltdown was the fault of Clinton, Carter and Obama.
No doubt you consider USA to be pure Hell, a third world country especially since January 2009. Are people dying in the street because of hunger? They probably are (according to you). They cannot be dying of disease (yet), since you have the most perfect health care system in the world (which Obama is going to convert into a third world system). Well have patience. In 2010, USA will become paradise again, when your party takes control of Senate and House. USA will become pure Heaven on earth when Joan of Ark wins the election in 2012.
Any economic meltdown that occurs during her eight years can always be blamed back on Obama, Clinton and Carter.
With any luck at all, Joan of Ark will get you people involved in two or three wars (Iran, North Korea) etc. (Bush got you in only two wars), and then it will really be the Kingdom of Jesus, the ultimate bliss in USA. Milk and honey will flow through the streets again, with chicken in every pot. Unemployment .1 % (or perhaps even zero?), inflation 0.1%.
As I said, you right wing extremists are really funny. In my opinion, anybody who claims that Bush years were pure Heaven on earth ought to have his head examined.
Re: Attacks on the President
The article that you cited, ironsides (not that I want to lend any shred of legitimacy to the claims that the Web site makes), states only that His Excellency had read a eulogy for one of the organisation’s members—surely, we aren’t going to discredit a president because not every one of his acquaintances shares the conservative values that you cherish? And to suggest that the president is a socialist because Democratic senators rushed foreign aid legislation through a committee? What a bunch of nonsense!
(And besides, a king would be styled His Majesty, EagleSmack!)
How unfortunate that you would use, as a source of back-up or evidence, a Web site that has, as its raison d’être, the mission of “exposing” progressive biases in the mainstream media. Your source exists solely to discredit the Democratic Party of the United States of America, so you’re going to have to excuse me for taking that statement with a grain (or two) of salt.
The article that you cited, ironsides (not that I want to lend any shred of legitimacy to the claims that the Web site makes), states only that His Excellency had read a eulogy for one of the organisation’s members—surely, we aren’t going to discredit a president because not every one of his acquaintances shares the conservative values that you cherish? And to suggest that the president is a socialist because Democratic senators rushed foreign aid legislation through a committee? What a bunch of nonsense!
As I said, Cannuck, $235 per annum per residence (on average), not per resident. $235 per household is absolutely a modest pricetag for the services that the Postal Service provides to you—Federal Express, amongst other leaders of the postal world, are excellent corporations to use for packages, and for business purposes. However, I wonder whether such a private corporation would remain just as quick and cost-effective, if it were to have to service each address six days out of the week? My guess would be, most probably not.
Certainly not, EagleSmack. The Department of Canadian Heritage accords foreign heads of State the style of Excellency, and Canadian Heritage accords the United States head of State the added style of The Honorable (a style not accorded to other heads of State that are not members of the Commonwealth of Nations). I use the styles suggested by Canadian Heritage to foster mutual respect between my own Canadian self and United States posters. In fact, I don’t think that the American usage of Excellency was ever revoked by law or regulation—it remains a traditional style for the president and several of your State governors, if I’m not mistaken.
(And besides, a king would be styled His Majesty, EagleSmack!)
Lets not forget how well the goverment ran the Mustang ranch.
"BAIL EM OUT! ????
Hell, back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now we are trusting the economy of our country, our banking system, our auto industry and possibly our health plans to the same nit-wits who couldn't make money running a ***** house and selling whiskey!"
"BAIL EM OUT! ????
Hell, back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch brothel in Nevada for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried to run it. They failed and it closed. Now we are trusting the economy of our country, our banking system, our auto industry and possibly our health plans to the same nit-wits who couldn't make money running a ***** house and selling whiskey!"
Last edited:
Here it is from the horses mouth so to speak. What Obama wants to do. Now the question is can the Goverment be trusted.
Dear Friend,
This is probably one of the longest emails I’ve ever sent, but it could be the most important.
Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back — even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.
As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, “where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.”
So let’s start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, you’ll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.
Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by what’s below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.
Thanks,
David
David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President
P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:
8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage
- Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.
- Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.
- Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.
- Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.
- Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.
- Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.
- Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.
- Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.
8 common myths about health insurance reform
- Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: It’s a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.
- We can’t afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. It’s a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.
- Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. It’s a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.
- Vets' health care is safe and sound: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.
- Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: It’s a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.
- Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: It’s myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.
- You can keep your own insurance: It’s myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.
- No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you – and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq
8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now
- Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults – 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market – were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more: Coverage Denied: How the Current Health Insurance System Leaves Millions Behind
- Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more: Hidden Costs of Health Care Report
- Roadblocks to Care for Women: Women’s reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more: Roadblocks to Health Care
- Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes
- Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured – 13 million people – are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spouse. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline
- The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more: http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction
- Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more: Diminishing Access to Care
- The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more: http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf
The White House • 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW • Washington, DC 20500 • 202-456-1111
Ironsides, isn’t that pot calling the kettle black? You side had the absolute control of every branch of government for six years (presidency, Senate, House and Supreme Court); you people could have repealed the law of gravity if you wanted.
Your party made a royal mess of everything. Not only did they get you involved in Iraq, but they gave you the current economic meltdown. They gave you huge deficits. While in Canada Liberals were running healthy surpluses, in USA Bush and his gang were borrowing like there was no tomorrow, and spending money like drunken sailors. It was not for nothing that you got your head handed to you twice in a row, in 2006 and 2008.
Now you complaining that Obama is mismanaging the economy, after being in power for just six months, lacks credibility. Bush had eight years to make a horrible mess of the economy; it will take more than six months to set it right.
Also, 1990, wasn't that the Bush era? Your man was the President at that time. Your man bungled the running of Mustang Ranch.
I'm sure he's aware of that. Conservatives believe that governments are inherently bunglers. That is why they want as little government involvement in their lives. The real difference that I see here is that you believe the only one party can bungle. History has shown that you are wrong.