# Outburst during Obama's speech.



## xXxPriestessxXx (Sep 10, 2009)

Rep. Wilson shouts to Obama during speech: 'You lie' - CNN.com

This is one of the most blatant display of disrespect for a president that I have seen in quite a while. Did Dems disagree with Bush on almost everything? Yes. Did they ever resort to name calling outbursts in the middle of a speech to a joint season of congress or in the middle of any of his formal speeches? No. The GOP is sure not helping its case with people like this filling the seats in both the Senate and Congress. Not to mention if he had actually read the bill he would know that offering health care to illegal immigrants is addressed in the bill much as Obama mentioned. 
For reference here is a link: Twenty-six Lies About H.R. 3200 | FactCheck.org


----------



## Randy (Sep 10, 2009)

I guess he had to shout "you lie!" because "President's got a big butt! _Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah!!!!_" was too passe.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 10, 2009)

I watched the speech and found the blatant disrespect terrible. What's worse is that Obama addressed all of the fear-mongering claims that have been spread in opposition to health care reform and specifically pointed out that nobody would need to give up their current plan, making public health care and OPTION... yet, after the speech, the Republican response (a very plastic address, mind you) was that "Forcing you and your family to change their health care is wrong," blah blah... its such a ridiculous and unnecessary uphill battle.


----------



## halsinden (Sep 10, 2009)

Randy said:


> because "President's got a big butt! _Nah-nah-nah-nah-nah-nah!!!!_"



does he though? has anyone thought to check? i'd appreciate knowing as this _could_ admittedly change a few things. for instance, it could affect his tone.

H


----------



## AySay (Sep 10, 2009)

Good Republicans are like moderate Muslims. The insane ones thrust themselves into the spotlight and give the rest of them a bad name. Really, all these idiots do now is make a fuss about everything Obama says and does, because they are whiny bigot losers. I mean, the school speech "controversy". Come on. Did you see that speech? How can those retards defend their claims of "brainwashing" and "the republic being under attack" after that?


----------



## synrgy (Sep 10, 2009)

What a fucking joke.

Wilson, much like so many of his crybaby comrades, needs to die in a fire to spare the population from any more spreading of his genes.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 10, 2009)

halsinden said:


> does he though? has anyone thought to check? i'd appreciate knowing as this _could_ admittedly change a few things. for instance, it could affect his tone.
> 
> H


you're fuckin' ridiculous 

that was awesome. and to be honest i can't say i'm surprised people act the way they do about obama. i've noticed lately in some of the threads people have been mentioning how some members try to "out mature" each other inadvertantly revealing themselves to be much less mature than the image they seek to project. 

likewise, i think that although the country tries to act like it's past racism (a lot of us are, but the older folks i think still haven't quite let it go completely) it's very much still alive and well. a lot of the unfounded claims that get made about obama more than likely have nothing to do with people thinking he's unable to perform his job. to me i don't think they trust a black man to do the job regardless of how well he presents himself. but they can't flat out say we don't want a black guy in office. that's what i think. 

flame if you will, but it just seems to me that if they had a legitimate issue with the man they'd go through the trouble of educating themselves on the situation rather than taking pride in being loud and wrong...


----------



## SpaceDock (Sep 10, 2009)

It's so weak that we pay these guys so much of our own money and they spend their time fighting instead of helping us.

None of these guys could give a shit about passing a health insurance bill because we are paying for their insurance already


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 10, 2009)

^ haha... that's generally how i feel about politics. every time i turn on the news the democrats and republicans look like children pointing fingers at each other all day and worrying more about getting some dirt on the other side than actually getting anything done. i mean i'm sure something gets done, but it just looks terrible that the so-called leaders of the free world act like a bunch of fuckin' children.

everything has turned into reality tv... even politics 

...Idiocracy?


----------



## minusthemonkey (Sep 10, 2009)

Let's play Devil's advocate for a moment and see if we can deduce some logic out of this. Follow along as I leap into the abyss.

If I understand the proposal for universal health care accurately, and using the Canadian/British systems as an example the following events would need to take place for Wilson's outburst to be seen as factual:

Policy regarding illegal immigrants would have to be changed, granting them an amnesty, through which they could achieve legal land immigrant status through what i can only assume would be a long and probably arduous process. Having now achieved legal status, they would be afforded some level of care as would any other legal resident.

Of course, now that they would be legal residents the notion it being health care for illegal immigrants is moot, but it takes a certain leap of faith to follow irrational thought.

On that note, and at the risk of incurring the wrath of opposite side, I find the opposition to universal health care utterly perplexing. I don't get it one bit.


----------



## phatfil (Sep 10, 2009)

xXxPriestessxXx said:


> Did they ever resort to name calling outbursts in the middle of a speech to a joint season of congress or in the middle of any of his formal speeches? No.


 
apparently you missed Bush's state of the union address in which the entire Democrat party booed throughout the speech.

RealClearPolitics - Video - Flashback: Democrats Boo Bush At 2005 State Of The Union

don't let either side fool you. neither are saints.


----------



## Randy (Sep 10, 2009)

phatfil said:


> don't let either side fool you. neither are saints.



In fairness, I'm a Democrat and a candidate for sainthood... so just give me a few centuries and that might change.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 10, 2009)

Konfyouzd said:


> ^ haha... that's generally how i feel about politics. every time i turn on the news the democrats and republicans look like children pointing fingers at each other all day and worrying more about getting some dirt on the other side than actually getting anything done. i mean i'm sure something gets done, but it just looks terrible that the so-called leaders of the free world act like a bunch of fuckin' children.
> 
> everything has turned into reality tv... even politics
> 
> ...Idiocracy?


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (Sep 10, 2009)

phatfil said:


> apparently you missed Bush's state of the union address in which the entire Democrat party booed throughout the speech.
> 
> RealClearPolitics - Video - Flashback: Democrats Boo Bush At 2005 State Of The Union
> 
> don't let either side fool you. neither are saints.




Boos are a part of life. Obama has been booed. Was it wrong of the dems to boo the president? Yes. I can deal with decent but out right yelling out that the president is lying to the american public is something else entirely. 

Neither side is perfect. I totally understand that but I just think the whole "fingers in our ears we aren't fucking listening" bullshit that the Republicans are pulling is ridiculous. It is pulling this country apart and leading to the massive misinformation of the masses.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 10, 2009)

xXxPriestessxXx said:


> Boos are a part of life. Obama has been booed. Was it wrong of the dems to boo the president? Yes. I can deal with decent but out right yelling out that the president is lying to the american public is something else entirely.
> 
> Neither side is perfect. I totally understand that but I just think the whole "fingers in our ears we aren't fucking listening" bullshit that the Republicans are pulling is ridiculous. It is pulling this country apart and leading to the massive misinformation of the masses.


if you let them tell it, it's *Obama* that is dividing the country... 

so really both sides are saying the same thing 

and i'm sure both feel like they're being the bigger person.


----------



## phatfil (Sep 10, 2009)

xXxPriestessxXx said:


> ...but I just think the whole "fingers in our ears we aren't fucking listening" bullshit that the Republicans are pulling is ridiculous.


 
both sides are extremely guilty of partisan politics and have been for a very long time. they pit us against each other.

there used to be a time when debates could happen and afterward representatives would go for a round of golf or something. now it's just crazyness from both sides.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 10, 2009)

Yeah, but what you're not mentioning, and maybe not even acknowledging, is that Obama is striving for bipartisanship.


----------



## phaeded0ut (Sep 10, 2009)

At least he didn't try to recreate a few of the scenes from "Blazing Saddles." 
I'm still rather amazed at the levels of churlishness from our elected officials, who were too busy to actually listen to what President Obama had to say and spent more time on their Blackberries (and other PDA's). I'd be more than a little upset if my representative(s) weren't paying attention for this issue.

I remember seeing a few Democrats committing similar antics during the Bush years, but never to this extent; quite frankly the level of vitriol wasn't in them. I have to agree, neither side are being completely civil.

At least no one got into a fist fight during the assembly last night.

The rebuttal from Louisiana was horrid, and borderline incoherent other than the message of "our political party is incapable of compromise." Rather hoping that Charles Boustany will not remain in office and someone willing to further gains for his constituents could be put into his office.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 10, 2009)

phaeded0ut said:


> The rebuttal from Louisiana was horrid, and borderline incoherent other than the message of "our political party is incapable of compromise." Rather hoping that Charles Boustany will not remain in office and someone willing to further gains for his constituents could be put into his office.


 
It was as if he hadn't even listened to Obama. Its just unbelievable.


----------



## JBroll (Sep 10, 2009)

Both sides suck.

What we're seeing is that the majority of people who say anything about politics are more than happy to ignore bad behavior out of their favorite party provided the 'other guys' do something worse. This is no surprise, and pretending that our 'political system' is anything more than fake reality-TV-style drama is getting pretty old.

Jeff


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 10, 2009)

Agreed, and I blame both parties. I don't blame Obama, because he doesn't seem to give into this behavior as much, but its a childish fued.


----------



## ChrisPcritter (Sep 11, 2009)

Too Funny.... 
One politician called another one a liar so we're supposed to be upset.. Obama should have said "so are you and a Darn good one or you wouldn't have made it as far as you did in politics"


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Sep 11, 2009)

phatfil said:


> there used to be a time when debates could happen and afterward representatives would go for a round of golf or something. now it's just crazyness from both sides.


That is still the case, it's just that nowadays, politicians are no more than actors for our viewing pleasure, much like a 3-piece suit and tie version of WWE.


----------



## JBroll (Sep 11, 2009)

Yeah, debates have to happen in areas where people commonly think about more than their Starbucks order after everyone with a party affiliation and everyone without a grasp of elementary reasoning has been stabbed in the eyes.

Jeff


----------



## DavyH (Sep 11, 2009)

xXxPriestessxXx said:


> This is one of the most blatant display of disrespect for a president that I have seen in quite a while.


 
I'm not so sure.... he kept his shoes on throughout the entire incident.

Heckling is part of the parliamentary game.. "You lie!" simply shows a lack of imagination on the part of the heckler.


----------



## JBroll (Sep 11, 2009)

DavyH said:


> "You lie!" simply shows a lack of imagination on the part of the heckler.



Take that back, you... stupid, ugly, stupid poopeyhead!

Jeff


----------



## pink freud (Sep 11, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Yeah, but what you're not mentioning, and maybe not even acknowledging, is that Obama is striving for bipartisanship.



Which isn't necessarily a good thing. When there is no chance of pleasing everybody (or even most everybody) you have to choose a path and stick to it. When you keep on trying to please everybody, nothing gets done. And while he has implemented some things, he could very easily slip into complacency if he isn't careful.

The American people voted overwhelmingly for a Democratic Party President, not a "lets all hold hands and try to get along" President. If Bush was good at anything, he was good at doing what he thought needed to be done, fuck everyone else's opinion. That quality can be both a good thing or a bad thing, but right now it might be a NEEDED thing.


----------



## JBroll (Sep 11, 2009)

Don't give the Democrats too much credit and pretend that everybody was voting *for* them instead of *against* the Republicans.

Jeff


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (Sep 11, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Take that back, you... stupid, ugly, stupid poopeyhead!
> 
> Jeff


----------



## synrgy (Sep 11, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Don't give the Democrats too much credit and pretend that everybody was voting *for* them instead of *against* the Republicans.
> 
> Jeff



Truth.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 11, 2009)

JBroll said:


> Both sides suck.
> 
> What we're seeing is that the majority of people who say anything about politics are more than happy to ignore bad behavior out of their favorite party provided the 'other guys' do something worse. This is no surprise, and pretending that our 'political system' is anything more than fake reality-TV-style drama is getting pretty old.
> 
> Jeff


----------



## RenegadeDave (Sep 11, 2009)

Late to the party...

Anyway, yeah it's childish, but it's nothing new. As I recall Bush was referred to as being a liar ad nausea by out of power democrats who were hysterical that they couldn't grow the government as they saw fit (rather than R's growing it in their own special ways : ). So one side resorts to calling names and making snide comments to/about the president for years, then one calls one name and it's like nothing has happened like this before. With as hyper partisan as the legislature and the political climate in general has become, it's little surprise to me. 

LOL and someone said Obama is trying to be bipartisan. Is that why he can't get his blue dog votes to cram the bill through the congress? 

This kind of stuff is apparently pretty common in British and Australian parliaments. i recall a fist fight in Australia not too terribly long ago. 

The best part was Nancy Pelosi looked like she was going to lay an egg. I'm seriously shocked that woman could be elected to any office, let alone nominated by her party to be speaker of the house. 

The one thing I took away from the speech was the rhetoric change. From "nearly 47 million uninsured Americans" to "Over 30 million uninsured American Citizens".

EDIT: Things were so much easier when the Constitution was regarded as THE cardinal document of the law and was adhered to rather than the partisan bickering about the best way to disregard it.


----------



## synrgy (Sep 11, 2009)

The difference is, we had concrete evidence that Bush was -- in fact -- a liar-liar-pants-on-fire. WMD's, anyone?

In this case, there is no evidence at all to support rep. Wilson's claims, and there is a proverbial ton of evidence to rebuke them.

As for Obama trying to be bipartisan, his pre-Presidential legislative record, as short some say it was, did show that he had done quite a bit of work with other senators from both sides of the aisle. The fact that currently both sides are too busy finger pointing and dodging any real issues doesn't change his past efforts, and I wouldn't put the blame for lack of cooperation between sides squarely on his shoulders. Sure, he holds *some* of the blame for picking a bunch of lefties for his cabinet, but the way the election results looked I probably would have made the same call had I been in his shoes..


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Sep 11, 2009)

Also, having watched the video only just now, I must conclude that Joe Wilson did not properly channel his inner Zim.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 11, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> EDIT: Things were so much easier when the Constitution was regarded as THE cardinal document of the law and was adhered to rather than the partisan bickering about the best way to disregard it.



This is called conservativism, and if we were consistently and strictly under its rule, we'd still be hanging the heathens and non-believers.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Sep 11, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> This is called conservativism, and if we were consistently and strictly under its rule, we'd still be hanging the heathens and non-believers.




LOL so belief that a doctrine set in secular law established as the basis of rule for the country automatically leads to an oppressive theocracy?

I must be reading a different version of the Constitution than you...


----------



## synrgy (Sep 11, 2009)

The Constitution is a lot like the Bible. It says one thing, and that one thing gets interpreted a billion different ways by a billion different people.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Sep 11, 2009)

synrgy said:


> The Constitution is a lot like the Bible. It says one thing, and that one thing gets interpreted a billion different ways by a billion different people.



Yeah people have taken some great liberties with that whole "enumeration of powers" thing.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 11, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> LOL so belief that a doctrine set in secular law established as the basis of rule for the country automatically leads to an oppressive theocracy?
> 
> I must be reading a different version of the Constitution than you...


 
I made that point regarding the mentality behind your post, not the Constitution.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Sep 11, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I made that point regarding the mentality behind your post, not the Constitution.



"libertarian" is the word you were looking for unfortunately. Or you could create a word like "Constitutionalist" if you like. "Classically Liberal" is another option as well. 

If I had my way you'd have a lot more freedom, a lot fewer taxes, and a lot less government.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 11, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> EDIT: Things were so much easier when the Constitution was regarded as THE cardinal document of the law and was adhered to rather than the partisan bickering about the best way to disregard it.


 
Conservativism: a political or theological orientation advocating the preservation of the best in society and opposing radical changes 

I meant this.

On the other hand, I agree with the latter part of your post - more freedom is always the best.


----------



## -mouse- (Sep 11, 2009)

all I have to say is, Obama better fix some shit before his term is over. He has his work cut out for him. People can naysay him all they want, but it doesn't really change the fact that he's president now The shit-flinging should stop, although unfortunately it doesn't seem like that'll ever be a reality... The Repubs are all fucking butthurt that a democrat is in the office now (Though in all fairness he doesn't seem to be doing a whole lot of good right now)


----------



## JBroll (Sep 11, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I made that point regarding the mentality behind your post, not the Constitution.



Somehow I'm missing the part where 'not wanting government interference everywhere' leads to 'burning heathens'... you'll recall that the Salem witch trials (and many others) were actually trials carried out by local magistrates who were, unfortunately, given too much power.

It's hard to rule by religion when you can't actually rule.

Jeff


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 11, 2009)

I guess I was expecting too much of a stretch of logic to get the point across - I meant that if we always ruled our society by the old ways and never strayed from old beliefs, there'd be trouble. Thus, I was commenting on the mentality at play. It wasn't a big deal, regardless.


----------



## JBroll (Sep 11, 2009)

New ideas aren't always good ideas. 'Large government' is itself a fairly old idea... predating, in fact, the idea of a limited government as far as I know.

Jeff


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 11, 2009)

You're right, but that's entirely irrelevant, considering my comments.


----------



## JBroll (Sep 11, 2009)

Considering that the reason I prefer limited government has nothing to do with the age of the idea (or a sense of nostalgia about 'the good old days' no living person actually recalls) but with its own appeal - and the nagging feeling that Thomas Jefferson knew his shit better than Nancy Pelosi - I think you're missing my point. (As far as I know, Dave feels the same way.)

Jeff


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 11, 2009)

I'm really not missing your point, you're missing mine because it has nothing to do with yours. I prefer limited government as well.


----------



## MTech (Sep 11, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Obama is striving for bipartisanship.




I'd like to see some examples of this since he hasn't let them put any input on anything....we've got the "Stimulus" doing nothing but bankrupting the country even more. Republicans called for tax cuts etc which are proven to work but instead he's putting small businesses out on the streets and unemployment is skyrocketing. "Creating or saving" is a joke and building a bridge or paving a road isn't a steady real job created, it's temp work that once completed you're done yet again. The Republican Party has put in to have a meeting with what they've got for the health care situation and has Obama met with them? No. He has however met with the secular progressivists to ram bills through in the middle of the night etc. and put his socialist/communist Czars in charge of things with nobody to answer to. At the rate things are going it wouldn't surprise me if he basicaly undoes the basic principals of this country so that he can remain in office past his term and becomes a full fledged dictator. He can't take criticism, and doesn't see himself as a president in fact I wouldn't be surprised if he seriously thinks he's the messiah the way he struts around. They're trying to strip away our freedom of speech, they're working on destroying the religious roots the country was founded on, and they're trying to take away our 2nd amendment rights to leave us totally helpless. I give many Kudos to the recent speech given down in Australia basically telling the muslims trying to come in and ruin their country that it's, Our country, you're the visitor so you adapt to us and learn the language etc. That's something that needs done in this country, it's fine to believe in whatever you do, but the way things are being gone about now are ripping this country apart at the seams.


"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." 
- Norman Thomas



RenegadeDave said:


> "libertarian" is the word you were looking for unfortunately. Or you could create a word like "Constitutionalist" if you like. "Classically Liberal" is another option as well.
> 
> If I had my way you'd have a lot more freedom, a lot fewer taxes, and a lot less government.


----------



## synrgy (Sep 11, 2009)

MTech said:


> At the rate things are going it wouldn't surprise me if he basicaly undoes the basic principals of this country so that he can remain in office past his term and becomes a full fledged dictator.



Funny. I said the same thing -- almost verbatim -- about the last President.


----------



## XEN (Sep 11, 2009)

MTech said:


> I'd like to see some examples of this since he hasn't let them put any input on anything.... socialist/communist Czars ... full fledged dictator... I wouldn't be surprised if he seriously thinks he's the messiah the way he struts around... blah, blah, blah...  ... etc


With that kind of input there's no room for dialog.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 11, 2009)

MTech said:


> I'd like to see some examples of this since he hasn't let them put any input on anything....we've got the "Stimulus" doing nothing but bankrupting the country even more. Republicans called for tax cuts etc which are proven to work but instead he's putting small businesses out on the streets and unemployment is skyrocketing. "Creating or saving" is a joke and building a bridge or paving a road isn't a steady real job created, it's temp work that once completed you're done yet again. The Republican Party has put in to have a meeting with what they've got for the health care situation and has Obama met with them? No. He has however met with the secular progressivists to ram bills through in the middle of the night etc. and put his socialist/communist Czars in charge of things with nobody to answer to. At the rate things are going it wouldn't surprise me if he basicaly undoes the basic principals of this country so that he can remain in office past his term and becomes a full fledged dictator. He can't take criticism, and doesn't see himself as a president in fact I wouldn't be surprised if he seriously thinks he's the messiah the way he struts around. They're trying to strip away our freedom of speech, they're working on destroying the religious roots the country was founded on, and they're trying to take away our 2nd amendment rights to leave us totally helpless. I give many Kudos to the recent speech given down in Australia basically telling the muslims trying to come in and ruin their country that it's, Our country, you're the visitor so you adapt to us and learn the language etc. That's something that needs done in this country, it's fine to believe in whatever you do, but the way things are being gone about now are ripping this country apart at the seams.
> 
> 
> "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
> - Norman Thomas


 
You wouldn't happen to buy into biased bickering from fear mongering, misinformative sources, would you?


----------



## MTech (Sep 11, 2009)

synrgy said:


> Funny. I said the same thing -- almost verbatim -- about the last President.


And I wouldn't disagree on him trying to be in there longer given the circumstances. There was talks of the country being in shambles with everything that if there was another event it wouldn't be the best time to switch into a whole new slew of people. I'm not 100% about Bush by any means, there's a lot of things he did I wasn't behind, but there's at least twice as much Obama has done and/or NOT done that I'm against. It's a completely different situation then somebody who just comes off as having a huge ego and a list of corrupt associates that could rival santa's scroll. 



urklvt said:


> With that kind of input there's no room for dialog.


Typical Progressivist Response.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 11, 2009)

Dude... how could you possibly say that Obama has done twice as much bad as Bush has? That is absolutely absurd. I don't want to disregard anybody in this conversation, but that is just outright ridiculous.


----------



## XEN (Sep 11, 2009)

MTech said:


> Typical Progressivist Response.


Quaint. Very quaint.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Sep 11, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm really not missing your point, you're missing mine because it has nothing to do with yours. I prefer limited government as well.



Then why would you stray from the idea of a strict Constitutionalist Federal government in power in Washington? Printing money and raising a standing army is essentially "it". That's pretty damn limited if you consider we're in the used car business, the banking business, the new car business, and now we're trying to get in to the medical insurance business. That borders more on limitless than limited. 

Personally, I'm still confused as to how the Government even has the power set up to even discuss taking over any private industry, given the document that established it. If anything, this would be considered an issue for the State governments to address, not the real world isolationists inside the beltway.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 11, 2009)

^Your guess is as good as mine, man.


----------



## MTech (Sep 11, 2009)

RenegadeDave said:


> Personally, I'm still confused as to how the Government even has the power set up to even discuss taking over any private industry, given the document that established it. .




Exactly my point, he's got such a corrupt group of people he gets away with everything and anything and he's working on stripping our rights away 1 by one.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 11, 2009)

I don't really think that's the point - he's trying to reform healthcare in a way that provides the OPTION of public health insurance. This doesn't force you to change your healthcare, and it doesn't in any way imply a takeover of a privately owned corner of the market. With the option of public healthcare on the table, the insurance companies will have to provide competitive prices amongst themselves, which will work fine because these companies will be able to provide better coverage than just basic healthcare. This all helps more people get health insurance.

...and you do realize that the Bush administration did many things that violated our rights as well, right? You're making biased points, and that's not productive.


----------



## ElDuderino (Sep 11, 2009)

MTech said:


> I'd like to see some examples of this since he hasn't let them put any input on anything....we've got the "Stimulus" doing nothing but bankrupting the country even more. Republicans called for tax cuts etc which are proven to work but instead he's putting small businesses out on the streets and unemployment is skyrocketing. "Creating or saving" is a joke and building a bridge or paving a road isn't a steady real job created, it's temp work that once completed you're done yet again. The Republican Party has put in to have a meeting with what they've got for the health care situation and has Obama met with them? No. He has however met with the secular progressivists to ram bills through in the middle of the night etc. and put his socialist/communist Czars in charge of things with nobody to answer to. At the rate things are going it wouldn't surprise me if he basicaly undoes the basic principals of this country so that he can remain in office past his term and becomes a full fledged dictator. He can't take criticism, and doesn't see himself as a president in fact I wouldn't be surprised if he seriously thinks he's the messiah the way he struts around. They're trying to strip away our freedom of speech, they're working on destroying the religious roots the country was founded on, and they're trying to take away our 2nd amendment rights to leave us totally helpless. I give many Kudos to the recent speech given down in Australia basically telling the muslims trying to come in and ruin their country that it's, Our country, you're the visitor so you adapt to us and learn the language etc. That's something that needs done in this country, it's fine to believe in whatever you do, but the way things are being gone about now are ripping this country apart at the seams.



 Instead of regurgitating right-wing rhetoric, perhaps you should try to find some facts to report on. As far as the stimulus package "doing nothing but bankrupting the country even more", The Wall Street Journal recently reported that, "government efforts to funnel hundreds of billions of dollars into the U.S. economy appear to be helping the U.S. climb out of the worst recession in decades," and that it added 3 percentage points of GDP during the third quarter. Keep in mind this is the Wall Street Journal, which isn't exactly a liberal publication.

All the talk of "stripping away freedoms" is laughable compared to President Bush of whom you apparently think quite highly. No President has done more to spit in the face of personal freedoms than him. Also, America was not founded on any religious roots and is indeed a secular nation. The 1st Amendment stands against the formation of a national religion and insures freedom to practice any religion one chooses. Very few of the founding fathers of America were indeed Christians, so as you can see this nation was not built on any religious roots.

Almost all of the statements in your post are absurd, and your anti-Muslim remarks represent everything that is wrong with the close-minded hate-mongers in this country like yourself. It is statements like this that leave the rest of the world with a distorted negative view on America. Instead of tuning in to Fox News, next time try thinking for yourself.


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Sep 11, 2009)

MTech said:


> I'd like to see some examples of this since he hasn't let them put any input on anything....we've got the "Stimulus" doing nothing but bankrupting the country even more. Republicans called for tax cuts etc which are proven to work but instead he's putting small businesses out on the streets and unemployment is skyrocketing. "Creating or saving" is a joke and building a bridge or paving a road isn't a steady real job created, it's temp work that once completed you're done yet again. The Republican Party has put in to have a meeting with what they've got for the health care situation and has Obama met with them? No. He has however met with the secular progressivists to ram bills through in the middle of the night etc. and put his socialist/communist Czars in charge of things with nobody to answer to. At the rate things are going it wouldn't surprise me if he basicaly undoes the basic principals of this country so that he can remain in office past his term and becomes a full fledged dictator. He can't take criticism, and doesn't see himself as a president in fact I wouldn't be surprised if he seriously thinks he's the messiah the way he struts around. They're trying to strip away our freedom of speech, they're working on destroying the religious roots the country was founded on, and they're trying to take away our 2nd amendment rights to leave us totally helpless. I give many Kudos to the recent speech given down in Australia basically telling the muslims trying to come in and ruin their country that it's, Our country, you're the visitor so you adapt to us and learn the language etc. That's something that needs done in this country, it's fine to believe in whatever you do, but the way things are being gone about now are ripping this country apart at the seams.
> 
> 
> "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
> - Norman Thomas



I could almost hear the banjos playing as you typed that. When are people going to get off this "Obama gunna kill OUR country!!" nonsense. Bush ran this place into the 10th level of hell for his own personal gain..and people are still trying to lynch Obama, blame him for everything, and uncover his plot to turn America into "one of them Muslim communist countries". I'm sorry, but you're the kind of person that gives the rest of America a bad image. This "us real Americans against them" idea is actually sickening and I get tired of hearing it come from the same people over and over again. If you represent what America really is or what it should be then I'd gladly step aside to let the president "ruin" things. You have all your rights now and the ONLY thing you use them for is to ramble off conspiracy theories, give shit loads of completely unfounded accusations and work to segregate and instill fear at a time where the exact opposite is needed.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 12, 2009)

on the last two posts


----------



## White Cluster (Sep 12, 2009)

MTech said:


> I'd like to see some examples of this since he hasn't let them put any input on anything....we've got the "Stimulus" doing nothing but bankrupting the country even more. Republicans called for tax cuts etc which are proven to work but instead he's putting small businesses out on the streets and unemployment is skyrocketing. "Creating or saving" is a joke and building a bridge or paving a road isn't a steady real job created, it's temp work that once completed you're done yet again. The Republican Party has put in to have a meeting with what they've got for the health care situation and has Obama met with them? No. He has however met with the secular progressivists to ram bills through in the middle of the night etc. and put his socialist/communist Czars in charge of things with nobody to answer to. At the rate things are going it wouldn't surprise me if he basicaly undoes the basic principals of this country so that he can remain in office past his term and becomes a full fledged dictator. He can't take criticism, and doesn't see himself as a president in fact I wouldn't be surprised if he seriously thinks he's the messiah the way he struts around. They're trying to strip away our freedom of speech, they're working on destroying the religious roots the country was founded on, and they're trying to take away our 2nd amendment rights to leave us totally helpless. I give many Kudos to the recent speech given down in Australia basically telling the muslims trying to come in and ruin their country that it's, Our country, you're the visitor so you adapt to us and learn the language etc. That's something that needs done in this country, it's fine to believe in whatever you do, but the way things are being gone about now are ripping this country apart at the seams.
> 
> 
> "The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of "liberalism," they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened."
> - Norman Thomas


^^Does this mean Glenn Beck plays a sevenstring?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 12, 2009)

Haha that hardly makes sense to me, but I laughed.


----------



## JBroll (Sep 12, 2009)

MTech, it's embarrassing to be associated with someone who can't spell, understand the most basic premises of the founding of the nation, do basic fact checking, or stop from saying stupid things about Muslims. On behalf of all people who dislike Obama and *aren't* total idiots, I ask that you shut your face and let the grown-ups do the talking.

Jeff


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Sep 12, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I'm really not missing your point, you're missing mine because it has nothing to do with yours. I prefer limited government as well.


I think anyone would miss your point, as your comments are rather foggy.


----------



## MTech (Sep 12, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I don't really think that's the point - he's trying to reform healthcare in a way that provides the OPTION of public health insurance. This doesn't force you to change your healthcare, and it doesn't in any way imply a takeover of a privately owned corner of the market. With the option of public healthcare on the table, the insurance companies will have to provide competitive prices amongst themselves, which will work fine because these companies will be able to provide better coverage than just basic healthcare. This all helps more people get health insurance.



No this is what you're saying he's doing..he hasn't put out anything solid yet so everything you're saying is bias and not fact. On the other hand every other form of the type of healthcare he's talking about hasn't worked and has severely negative effects. From everything he has shown sure it's supposed to keep the public options, but it's setup in a way in which they won't last and they'll basically be forced under so he can try to say well obviously the public option didn't work so socialized medicine all the way. So if he puts up something showing everything he's trying to claim that sounds so good, then we'll see...but as of now I have a hard time believing anything he's said since he's delivered so little of what he's promised aside from "change" and that hasn't been for the better.



ElDuderino said:


> Also, America was not founded on any religious roots and is indeed a secular nation. The 1st Amendment stands against the formation of a national religion and insures freedom to practice any religion one chooses. Very few of the founding fathers of America were indeed Christians, so as you can see this nation was not built on any religious roots.


You're right, there's no mention of "In God We Trust" or "One Nation Under God" etc... no religion in this country's heritage what so ever.  I never said they were catholic, you just automatically took it there with my mention of the leader going off about the negative impacts of sharia law that he wasn't going to let come into his country. The fact you would try and say this also tosses you right into the secular pile to no surprise. Where is God in the Constitution? <- I didn't read through this all nor do I have time at the moment but at glance it's seemingly giving the point. 



DrakkarTyrannis said:


> I could almost hear the banjos playing as you typed that. When are people going to get off this "Obama gunna kill OUR country!!" nonsense. Bush ran this place into the 10th level of hell for his own personal gain..and people are still trying to lynch Obama, blame him for everything, and uncover his plot to turn America into "one of them Muslim communist countries". I'm sorry, but you're the kind of person that gives the rest of America a bad image. This "us real Americans against them" idea is actually sickening and I get tired of hearing it come from the same people over and over again. If you represent what America really is or what it should be then I'd gladly step aside to let the president "ruin" things. You have all your rights now and the ONLY thing you use them for is to ramble off conspiracy theories, give shit loads of completely unfounded accusations and work to segregate and instill fear at a time where the exact opposite is needed.



Not quite, you're the one who took it to a racist level. I've got friends of many religions and have no problem with what people believe in. My point is rather this country was based on a certain one, just like other countries for the most part are based around there own main religion. Out of nowhere comes Obama trying to please everybody and water everything down and push aside everything this country was founded on and about. You can be anti catholic, atheist, satanist whatever I don't care but just cause the country was founded on god doesn't mean it was ever about shoving it down peoples throats and I don't expect it to be. I'm trying to think of the best way to even describe it...basically what he's doing I'll compare like this.. Some know it all mentality guy comes stumbling along and has a historic park..he decides it isn't quite providing enough to please everybody so he builds roads, parking lots, shopping centers, ice cream stands......what's left?? Next to nothing that made that park what made it special in the first place. Or to be a little closer to the actual situation and actually funny to think about.. Lets just say for some reason people in Italy just started to up and move to Japan. Now they come in and refuse to learn the language yet start taking up jobs and "working the system." It sounds silly, but that's an extremely simplified mock of what we have going on with illegal immigrants and the point he was making when he gave the speech. There's a legal way to come over, and a process to become a part of a country if you choose to become part of it. If you don't want to be part of it then technically you should only really be here visiting in which you'd be going back. He was addressing the ones who basically invade, try to push their ways on to people, and don't abide by the actual laws and laws of the given country. 
Sure you can go off about Bush as well, but you seem to skip the fact that it was Clinton who started all the subprime loan issues to begin with. Which still that's beside the point that we're well into Obamas term and it's him digging us into a hole we'll never be able to get back out of at the rate he's digging it, not Bush. Then you want to go off about conspiracy theories?? That's funny cause the only people I see preaching those are all your typical secular progressivists that back Obama and the Michael Moore types. The only nonfactual supported accusations seem to come flying from liberal run media just look at what happened with Dan Rather for example... or let me guess all the current dirt that just Surfaced on Acorn is false accusation too even though it's right on video tape in it's entirety right? You liberal sack riders are all the same, always denying the facts, quick to blame and go to name calling, pulling race cards left and right and flip flopping every other minute. That's not to mention the need to get off the blame Bush trip because nobody is denying he has done his share in wrong doing, but you're all apparently so caught up in Obama BS you'd think the sky was purple if he told you so. 

There's lots of things Bush did I'm certainly not a fan of, but in general today has just been a horrible day and reading some of the shit in this thread just bumped me over the edge  so sorry if it's coming off more as a jumbled together rant  FWIW I didn't like anybody who ran in the last election, it's just I didn't see the other guys putting people with such questionable backgrounds into the picture like Obama is, let alone trying to socialize everything like he is.


----------



## ElDuderino (Sep 12, 2009)

MTech said:


> You're right, there's no mention of "In God We Trust" or "One Nation Under God" etc... no religion in this country's heritage what so ever.  I never said they were catholic, you just automatically took it there with my mention of the leader going off about the negative impacts of sharia law that he wasn't going to let come into his country. The fact you would try and say this also tosses you right into the secular pile to no surprise. Where is God in the Constitution?



Once again you are in need of a little fact checking. The term "One Nation Under God" wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, "In God We Trust" wasn't added to all U.S. currency until 1955, and it replaced "E Plurubus Unum" as the official national motto in 1956. The "In God We Trust" changes were largely due to the McCarthy Era and its battle against "godless communists", and I would hardly refer to Joseph McCarthy as a founding father or the roots of America.


----------



## chimp_spanner (Sep 12, 2009)

MTech said:


> ...The only nonfactual supported accusations seem to come flying from liberal run media...



YOU LIE!!!


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Sep 12, 2009)

MTech said:


> Not quite, you're the one who took it to a racist level. I've got friends of many religions and have no problem with what people believe in. My point is rather this country was based on a certain one, just like other countries for the most part are based around there own main religion. Out of nowhere comes Obama trying to please everybody and water everything down and push aside everything this country was founded on and about. You can be anti catholic, atheist, satanist whatever I don't care but just cause the country was founded on god doesn't mean it was ever about shoving it down peoples throats and I don't expect it to be. I'm trying to think of the best way to even describe it...basically what he's doing I'll compare like this.. Some know it all mentality guy comes stumbling along and has a historic park..he decides it isn't quite providing enough to please everybody so he builds roads, parking lots, shopping centers, ice cream stands......what's left?? Next to nothing that made that park what made it special in the first place. Or to be a little closer to the actual situation and actually funny to think about.. Lets just say for some reason people in Italy just started to up and move to Japan. Now they come in and refuse to learn the language yet start taking up jobs and "working the system." It sounds silly, but that's an extremely simplified mock of what we have going on with illegal immigrants and the point he was making when he gave the speech. There's a legal way to come over, and a process to become a part of a country if you choose to become part of it. If you don't want to be part of it then technically you should only really be here visiting in which you'd be going back. He was addressing the ones who basically invade, try to push their ways on to people, and don't abide by the actual laws and laws of the given country.
> Sure you can go off about Bush as well, but you seem to skip the fact that it was Clinton who started all the subprime loan issues to begin with. Which still that's beside the point that we're well into Obamas term and it's him digging us into a hole we'll never be able to get back out of at the rate he's digging it, not Bush. Then you want to go off about conspiracy theories?? That's funny cause the only people I see preaching those are all your typical secular progressivists that back Obama and the Michael Moore types. The only nonfactual supported accusations seem to come flying from liberal run media just look at what happened with Dan Rather for example... or let me guess all the current dirt that just Surfaced on Acorn is false accusation too even though it's right on video tape in it's entirety right? You liberal sack riders are all the same, always denying the facts, quick to blame and go to name calling, pulling race cards left and right and flip flopping every other minute. That's not to mention the need to get off the blame Bush trip because nobody is denying he has done his share in wrong doing, but you're all apparently so caught up in Obama BS you'd think the sky was purple if he told you so.



I'm sorry..weren't we doing well financially when Clinton was in office..during the entire 2 terms ("it's the economy stupid"..remember that)? The country's given to Bush...after he's done we're in the worst economic crisis since the great depression...and now Obama's just making it worse you say....

And onto the race thing..I really love how at it's mention, people like you get all defensive. I haven't said anything about his race..YOU and others like you on the other hand, are more than willing to use every word you know to paint Obama as anti-America, so willing to draw the line between him and people like you, and in the same rant go off on other people coming into "our" country pushing their ways on "us"..what is this "us" and "ours" shit and who exactly made you the standard of America? Only thing I see immigrants doing is not learning english, SOME of them, and while annoying sometimes I wouldn't call it "pushing their views on us". Once they get here, they're supposed to leave their culture and religions at the door because you don't understand it? Once again there's this us vs. them mentality yet people like you never fully describe who the "us" is..because apparently it's no one like Obama, the people who support him, immigrants, non christians, etc. I have a hard time ignoring the implications of what's said when it's always coming from the same kind of person, pushing the same kind of bullshit but trying to substitute the words that make it more obvious, for something they can hide behind to keep their intent from becoming blatant. If you don't want people to think that, you should think more about what you say. And since we mentioned Obama..who was the better alternative? McCain and Palin? Because we all know they would have made this country like "it used to be"...in "the good old times"...after all they are "christians" and "real Americans" and they wouldn't have been like the "muslim commmunist" we've got now.

I'm not against people being against Obama. I'm glad there are people who are against him..keeps a watchful eye on him and both sides of the view should always be in place..but I am against idiots. You'll have to excuse me when I get angered by various people talking about "their" country..the last time those types of people were in the majority people like me ended up hanging from trees and sitting in the backs of buses.


----------



## Konfyouzd (Sep 12, 2009)

it looks a lot like congress up in here... 

we just need a scandal...


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 12, 2009)

MTech, I'm sorry man, but you're an idiot.


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Sep 12, 2009)

ElDuderino said:


> Once again you are in need of a little fact checking. The term "One Nation Under God" wasn't added to the Pledge of Allegiance until 1954, "In God We Trust" wasn't added to all U.S. currency until 1955, and it replaced "E Plurubus Unum" as the official national motto in 1956. The "In God We Trust" changes were largely due to the McCarthy Era and its battle against "godless communists", and I would hardly refer to Joseph McCarthy as a founding father or the roots of America.


Ahh, ya' beat me to it. 



MTech said:


> You're right, there's no mention of "In God We Trust" or "One Nation Under God" etc... no religion in this country's heritage what so ever.  I never said they were catholic, you just automatically took it there with my mention of the leader going off about the negative impacts of sharia law that he wasn't going to let come into his country. The fact you would try and say this also tosses you right into the secular pile to no surprise. Where is God in the Constitution?


Hoo boy, talk about sources. 

I especially liked:


> To the framers of the Constitution, the idea of having a government not based on God would have been unthinkable. It is important to remember that when the Constitution was written, the only possible explanation for the existence of the Universe was special creation. Therefore, all of the delegates at the Philadelphia convention were creationist.


That has got to be the stupidest reasoning I have read all week. Secularism didn't exist before Darwin? Really? Atheism and secularism both, existed long before Darwin.



MTech said:


> That's funny cause the only people I see preaching those are all your typical secular progressivists that back Obama and the Michael Moore types.


You're not looking hard enough.

[action=The Atomic Ass]dons a tinfoil hat[/action]



chimp_spanner said:


> YOU LIE!!!


You forgot something.









Konfyouzd said:


> we just need a scandal...


Well, JJ hides his bodies too well, and I can't be bothered to get out of the house enough to attract attention for being a pedophile... So we're probably a little hard up for a scandal.


----------



## chimp_spanner (Sep 12, 2009)

Haha, YES! Someone else who digs the Zim  Everytime I yell ".....DELICIOUS!" in a high pitched maniacal voice I'm always a little disappointed that nobody understands. *sigh*


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 12, 2009)

Zim is where its at. Complete absurdity, which is great.


----------



## chimp_spanner (Sep 12, 2009)

I need to re-assemble the DVD collection. I have the box set, the one that's shaped like Zim's house, with a toy GIR living in the attic.

Ahem. Anyway, sorry. Taking this way off topic. *shuts up*


----------



## xXxPriestessxXx (Sep 12, 2009)

Some how this conversation made me think of this.


----------



## HammerAndSickle (Sep 12, 2009)

Just wanted to say to Drakkar, I don't share your taste in guitars, I don't share your taste in music, and I don't share your taste in sexual partners  but you've made some awesome points here.


----------



## sevenstringj (Sep 12, 2009)

minusthemonkey said:


> I find the opposition to universal health care utterly perplexing.



It's pretty simple. You already spend anywhere from a third to half of your working life effectively toiling for the government. Do you want to work even more for the gov't to take care of this "social responsibility?"

Another glaring problem is the constant misuse of statistics to justify the urgent need for reform. Of those "46 million who are uninsured," most of them are either illegal immigrants, earn more than $50,000 a year and simply choose not to buy health insurance--god forbid people exercise their freedom of choice, and notice how Obama calls this "irresponsible"--or qualify for Medicaid but haven't signed up yet.

And probably the most obvious reason for the opposition to universal health care is that it's not opposition to universal health care, because that's not what's on the table. What's on the table is "universal health _insurance_." There's a BIG difference.


----------



## JBroll (Sep 12, 2009)

There are also people who don't consider plans like this to be the best way to make health care affordable and reasonable. It's not "People supporting Obama's plan" versus "People who don't want everyone to have health care" like some on the left seem to believe.

Jeff


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Sep 12, 2009)

xXxPriestessxXx said:


> [/COLOR]




 unbelievable!

that guy's face when he realises what he's just said is priceless.


----------



## Randy (Sep 12, 2009)

JBroll said:


> It's not "People supporting Obama's plan" versus "People who don't want everyone to have health care" like some on the left seem to believe.



FWIW, most of the opposition I see on a day-to-day basis, in my everyday life, sound a lot more like MTech than they sound like you.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 12, 2009)

Jeff provides a good side to an argument, usually, I'll hand that to him. In this case, I agree with him on most points.

I did, however, talk to an old man today who had the same disposition as MTech on this matter... the man, admittedly, didn't continue his education beyond the 8th grade.


----------



## JBroll (Sep 12, 2009)

Randy said:


> FWIW, most of the opposition I see on a day-to-day basis, in my everyday life, sound a lot more like MTech than they sound like you.



Trust me, I'm trying to distance myself from that type - and have been for as long as I can remember. (Could you tell?)

Jeff


----------



## Randy (Sep 12, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> I did, however, talk to an old man today who had the same disposition as MTech on this matter... the man, admittedly, didn't continue his education beyond the 8th grade.



^
Exactly. And I'm not saying that liberals/progressives are any smarter, but it's hard to buy into the opposition when the majority of them (which I encounter) sound like _that_.

EDIT: Yes I can, Jeff. [action= ]applauds[/action]

I have some experience trying to defend Democratic principles, while tolerating 'short-bus' Democratic arguments. So I can feel your pain.


----------



## JBroll (Sep 12, 2009)

It's not hard to sound like a twit arguing for 'progressive' causes, either - the entire movement is given away by the incredibly arrogant title they've given themselves... 

("*We* hold the key to progress! *We* are the future!"
"Well, what do you actually believe?"
"Fuck if I know... like, progressive shit, and... shit, you know? We want, like, the government to do things because they can and stuff.")

... and if physicists thought about the world in ways even remotely close to the average 'progressive' they'd believe that massive particles could move faster than light because their favorite talking head said the government could fund it.

Both sides need to shed the lunatic fringe baggage - not necessarily the extremists, just the ones that can't get their damned facts straight. People like MTech will still do orders of magnitude more good for liberals than even the best of liberal pundits just by making the opposition look like total idiots - I have a hard time believing that he's not a troll just trying to shove everyone into being a leftist wacko through fear of association.

Jeff


----------



## Randy (Sep 13, 2009)

I think the wikipedia article on contemporary progressivism frames what the name/movement is about pretty well.



> In the United States, the term progressivism emerged in the late 19th century into the 20th century in reference to a more general response to the vast changes brought by industrialization: an alternative to both the traditional conservative response to social and economic issues and to the various more radical streams of socialism and anarchism which opposed them.





> Social progressivism, which states that governmental practices ought to be adjusted as society evolves, forms the ideological basis for many American progressives.



Progressivism in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Whether you agree with it's positions or not, there's good reason for the name and it's far from being ill-thought out or with the intention of sounding arrogant.


----------



## JBroll (Sep 13, 2009)

If that were the only thing defining a 'progressive' we'd be on the same page, but good luck finding the One True Way To Modernize Shit if you think that clears the name against what I just mentioned.

Jeff


----------



## DrakkarTyrannis (Sep 13, 2009)

HammerAndSickle said:


> Just wanted to say to Drakkar, I don't share your taste in guitars, I don't share your taste in music, and I don't share your taste in sexual partners  but you've made some awesome points here.



Thank you...I do what I can. Normally I stay out of political debates..but I couldn't let that one go.


----------



## troyguitar (Sep 13, 2009)

JBroll said:


> People like MTech will still do orders of magnitude more good for liberals than even the best of liberal pundits just by making the opposition look like total idiots - I have a hard time believing that he's not a troll just trying to shove everyone into being a leftist wacko through fear of association.
> 
> Jeff



Unfortunately I'm pretty sure he's serious. The vast majority of people I know over the age of ~50 sound exactly like MTech (there are younger folks who are the same, but they are a small minority in my social circle at least). My dad has me on his giant "everyone I know" email list where they spread around those retarded chain emails which read like an MTech post. 

PS - Obama. Osama. Makes you think, doesn't it?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 13, 2009)

^^


----------



## The Atomic Ass (Sep 14, 2009)

troyguitar said:


> Unfortunately I'm pretty sure he's serious. The vast majority of people I know over the age of ~50 sound exactly like MTech (there are younger folks who are the same, but they are a small minority in my social circle at least). My dad has me on his giant "everyone I know" email list where they spread around those retarded chain emails which read like an MTech post.


1. Forward those e-mails to Jeff. He'll write a devastating reply which will physically cripple those who write that kind of inane garbage.
2. Send the reply to everyone in the to: and cc: fields of the original message, and if possible, to the original author of the message.
3. ????
4. Profit.


----------



## JBroll (Sep 14, 2009)

Sadly, Jeff has little time for such rubbish. Further, Jeff objects to any such abuse of email. Fortunately, Jeff has many recommendations for sharp objects that could come in handy in those situations.

Jeff


----------



## DslDwg (Sep 14, 2009)

I can't believe this is news - frankly who cares? Apparently Congressmen do this sort of thing a lot except it's just not usually within earshot of a microphone. Maybe it wasn't the appropriate way to do it - but is it illegal to disagree with President Obama? 

The Bush was worse and Bush did worse arguments are just kind of sad. So anytime one of us decides to speak out against the President we get - "Well Bush did worse"? I'm not defending Bush at all - but the President doesn't make decisions alone - where was congress during Bushes eight years in office - funny how they escape blame for all the things that went wrong over the last eight years. 

Do we need Health Care reform - I agree yes we do. It's sad that the Health Care Insurance companies get filthy rich while consumers pay more and the actual doctors make the same or less than they did before. But lets think folks - what is the U.S. Governments track record of successful programs. Social Security? Immigration? How did that whole cash for clunkers thing work out? Hurricane Katrina - that was a model of efficiency? Congress are buffoons - they are not business people. 

I'll even play a little naive and say that I think in his heart the President thinks he's doing the right thing - I just don't think that our government has the business acumen to make it happen. Someone will be getting fucked - someone else will be pocketing a lot of money and only a small portion of the intended people will be getting the help they need.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 14, 2009)

DslDwg said:


> I can't believe this is news - frankly who cares? Apparently Congressmen do this sort of thing a lot except it's just not usually within earshot of a microphone. Maybe it wasn't the appropriate way to do it - but is it illegal to disagree with President Obama?



Again, this is the Politics and Current Events forum. That's why we're talking about it. Is it that hard to understand?



DslDwg said:


> The Bush was worse and Bush did worse arguments are just kind of sad. So anytime one of us decides to speak out against the President we get - "Well Bush did worse"? I'm not defending Bush at all - but the President doesn't make decisions alone - where was congress during Bushes eight years in office - funny how they escape blame for all the things that went wrong over the last eight years.



I agree with this, and always point this out.


----------



## DslDwg (Sep 15, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Again, this is the Politics and Current Events forum. That's why we're talking about it. Is it that hard to understand?



Not hard to understand at all - you've obviously missed the point I was trying to make and maybe I was to tired when posting to clearly make a point. 

My point is - The congressman didn't bum rush the president with a knife - he didn't scream racial slurs at the president. He simply stated that the Presidents opinion of how the health care program would work for illegals was a lie. 

Like I said maybe not the best way to do this - but big fucking deal. 

Do not dare question the anointed one or fear the wrath of the politeness police.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 15, 2009)

Well, I wasn't under the impression that there was any opinions involved in that one - either illegal imigrants can get coverage or not. From what I understand, only citizens can get coverage, and illegal imigrants aren't citizens.


----------



## RenegadeDave (Sep 17, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Well, I wasn't under the impression that there was any opinions involved in that one - either illegal imigrants can get coverage or not. From what I understand, only citizens can get coverage, and illegal imigrants aren't citizens.



Just a bit of a heads up. In the "you lie" speech, the rhetoric changed from "47 million americans without health insurance" to "30 million American citizens". I recall even back to the campaign trail of that 47M figure, now, with the same piece of legislation that was argued with the 47M figure, now is being sold with this new 30M figure. As far as I can tell, it's still the same bill as the house just came back into session last week (when the speech was made), which suggests there haven't been changes made to the bill. 

Coincidently the number of "illegal" immigrants is often touted as being between 7M-25M, with most people putting a number of 12M to 15M. Odd that 17M would fall off of the marketing statistic. 

The rub is that the language is probably so damn vague in the bill, with enough lawyering it could probably go either way. Now, the Dems hands are tied and it's going to have to go the citizen only route because Obama said so (hence the rhetoric change). Considering it's the same bill, you figure it out. 

So whichever group of politicians you trust (lol @ you for trusting politicians), the party introducing the bill has now imposed "stricter" requirements on their own legislation. 

Regardless, I think the bill in it's current form is defeated. Any blue dog or Democrat in a swing district who signs that nuclear piece of legislation has his days are numbered. Dems can't garner enough votes in a super majority to pass the bill in it's current form, without Republicans stalling the bill with procedural nonsense. 

That all being said, I'm sick of policy makers making excuses that "Republicans are blocking healthcare reform". The Republicans couldn't if they wanted to. Truth is the Democrats don't have have their ducks in a row to pass this monstrosity of a bill. So you can scapegoat the R's all you want, but the reality is it's the fringe left D's who can't sell the bill to the majority of their party, let alone the American public at large (if you keep up with polling, never mind the TEA party shenangians). But if thinking that the Republican boogiemen are the SOLE thing keeping the legislation from passing helps you sleep at night, go right ahead and keep deluding yourself.


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 17, 2009)

^Agreed on nearly all points. Its a sloppy mess of childish antics mixed with bad politics. The resulting concoction is a less than viable solution to an ever growing problem. 

What I REALLY don't like about all of this is Obama saying that everybody would be required to have at least the most basic (public) form of health coverage. Why? If you don't want to be covered, then don't be covered. Why not use some of the inane amount of tax money we pay each year and just offer us a basic type of coverage when we have to make a visit to the ER?

Another thing that bothers me is the people going haywire, claiming that Obama is trying to tear this country apart and turn it into one run by Socialism.. from my honest perspective, the government already has a large hand in the market (which is supposed to be a free market, but let's face it - oil is politics these days, and oil often has a large effect on the well being of the market, and that's only one facet to bring up), but fuck if we ever hear about most of the dirt.


----------



## Korngod (Sep 18, 2009)

DslDwg said:


> The Bush was worse and Bush did worse arguments are just kind of sad. So anytime one of us decides to speak out against the President we get - "Well Bush did worse"? I'm not defending Bush at all - but the President doesn't make decisions alone - where was congress during Bushes eight years in office - funny how they escape blame for all the things that went wrong over the last eight years.


QFT! im not usually one for politics, but i get so pissed when people bash Bush or any president for that matter, congress is and should be equally to blame for any wrong doings.


----------



## Joeywilson (Sep 19, 2009)




----------



## RenegadeDave (Sep 30, 2009)

Another fun piece of the puzzle, some states are challenging the government's ability to enforce an insurance mandate. Lurking in the shadows of this issue has always been the whole states rights thing and if the federal govt actually has the authority under existing law to do something like they're proposing. Anyways, the article. 

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/29/us/29states.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss


And of course I'm going to get "It's the National Review, it doesn't count", but 20 falsehoods and misstatements during Obama's speech, someone did a fact check apparently. Obviously you're welcome to challenge them. 

You Mislead! by Michael F. Cannon and Ramesh Ponnuru on National Review Online


----------



## synrgy (Sep 30, 2009)

> RenegadeDave said:
> 
> 
> > And of course I'm going to get "It's the National Review, it doesn't count", but 20 falsehoods and misstatements during Obama's speech, someone did a fact check apparently. Obviously you're welcome to challenge them.
> ...


----------



## RenegadeDave (Sep 30, 2009)

synrgy said:


> > Reading through that link, I'm noticing a lot of the stuff they're claiming as 'falsehood' was stuff that could have been considered 'credible source' at the time of the speech. Like this one:
> >
> >
> >
> ...


----------



## DslDwg (Sep 30, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Well, I wasn't under the impression that there was any opinions involved in that one - either illegal imigrants can get coverage or not. From what I understand, only citizens can get coverage, and illegal imigrants aren't citizens.



They get it today - are the hospitals going to start denying care to illegals under the new plan?


----------



## Adam Of Angels (Sep 30, 2009)

Getting treated is different than getting coverage from the insurance companies.

I'm the kind of person that likes to treat humans equally, regardless of where they came from, but we have systems that disregard that way of thinking.


----------



## DslDwg (Sep 30, 2009)

Adam Of Angels said:


> Getting treated is different than getting coverage from the insurance companies.
> 
> I'm the kind of person that likes to treat humans equally, regardless of where they came from, but we have systems that disregard that way of thinking.



Don't the taxpayers still pay for it regardless of the semantics? 

Actually many illegals get better social program benefits than I do even though I pay for them. So in actuality myself and the other taxpayers in this country are the ones who are not getting treated equally. 

Relieve the tax burden created by 20 million illegal aliens - and then you'll have the money to pay for your health care program.


----------

