|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 20, 2009 18:19:21 GMT -5
At the Value Voters Summit
Part 1:
Part 2:
This guy will make a great President in 2012.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Sept 20, 2009 18:29:30 GMT -5
this is a hypocritical position. one of your main criticisms of president obama is that he's all talk. speeches can only get you so far, you've said in the past. now you say romney would be a good president because he speaks well?
believe it or not, i actually expect better from you.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 20, 2009 18:42:32 GMT -5
this is a hypocritical position. one of your main criticisms of president obama is that he's all talk. speeches can only get you so far, you've said in the past. now you say romney would be a good president because he speaks well? believe it or not, i actually expect better from you. lol fair comment. Difference, though, was that Obama was just playing on Bush-fatigue. What Romney is saying still goes against the majority opinions, he isn't exactly pandering like how Obama did. Plus, I believe Romney whereas I find Obama incredibly fake. I believe Romney will do what he says, which isn't the case with our current president.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Sept 21, 2009 0:35:10 GMT -5
Plus, I believe Romney whereas I find Obama incredibly fake. I believe Romney will do what he says, which isn't the case with our current president. you mean obama's acting like a politician? surprise, surprise. you're going to be shocked when you realize romney ends up being as full of shit as most others already know he is.
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 21, 2009 16:02:07 GMT -5
Plus, I believe Romney whereas I find Obama incredibly fake. I believe Romney will do what he says, which isn't the case with our current president. you mean obama's acting like a politician? surprise, surprise. you're going to be shocked when you realize romney ends up being as full of shit as most others already know he is. But Obama said he was post-racial and post-partisan president. He said he wasnt a politician. His whole campaign was run on him conning people to think he was a novel guy. Sadly, 53% or whatever actually believed him. Romney doesn't say shit like that.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Sept 21, 2009 17:36:05 GMT -5
obama never said that about himself. people said that about him. he's not a savior, he's a politician. if you really think the guy is a piece of shit because you disagree with his policies, that's your problem. i never said bush was a bad person. i have always thought that he was doing what he thought was the right thing to do. even if he was an utter and complete failure. he was so bad america actually elected a black guy who some (wrongly) think is a muslim.
the problem with people making him the post-racial, post-partisan candidate is that will never happen. everything's about partisanship and race. it's all about having the upper hand. dividing people up is the way to get the power. some things people like bill o'reilly, bill kristol, rush limbaugh and glenn beck are masters at. the same things democrats don't know shit about.
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Sept 22, 2009 6:48:28 GMT -5
i think obama could invent a cure for cancer and NL4E still would turn it into a negative thing...
obama is no typical politician? => he is not experienced enough. obama is a politician? => wrong, too. cause people believed he was not. obama in a positive media capaign? => shit media! obama fools the people with his media campaigns. obama in a negative media campaign? => fair, balanced journalism. obama delivers a good speech? => shit, because that is all he can do. one of obamas opponents delivers a good speech? => what a great politician!
NL4E probably also one of those highly intelligent people who call obama 'hitler' and 'communist' at the same time...
|
|
|
Post by caro on Sept 22, 2009 23:00:47 GMT -5
you cant deny that obama is doing exactly the contrary of what he promised in terms of transparency and openness in the government i mean his first decision was to push a huge stimulus without anyone actually knowing and even less studying what was in there he sold himself as a man of rupture, as a change from corruption and opacity... just saying
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 22, 2009 23:08:21 GMT -5
you cant deny that obama is doing exactly the contrary of what he promised in terms of transparency and openness in the government i mean his first decision was to push a huge stimulus without anyone actually knowing and even less studying what was in there he sold himself as a man of rupture, as a change from corruption and opacity... just saying Caro always has my back. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by caro on Sept 22, 2009 23:19:08 GMT -5
Stop or people are gonna think I like you
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 22, 2009 23:27:16 GMT -5
Obama was/is destined to fail. Why? Because people treated him as a God. They wanted to believe he was something that he's not, something great when he isn't. That's the problem with believing in "hope" at the expense of experience.
The Obama mania in 2008 and early 2009 was embarassing, pathetic, and down right wrong. I'm not saying McCain would have done better, I didn't really care for him either - and Palin is a joke - but how the left and the media treated Obama? Come off it.
And Obama played into it, which is equally concerning.
He's the weakest president since Carter. No doubt about that.
|
|
|
Post by caro on Sept 23, 2009 9:01:16 GMT -5
Dunno about him being the weakest but he sucks, that's for sure
I have a customer whom when I see him and asks how he is he says: "Obama is still president?" Cracks me up ;D
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Sept 23, 2009 22:34:28 GMT -5
Obama was/is destined to fail. Why? Because people treated him as a God. They wanted to believe he was something that he's not, something great when he isn't. That's the problem with believing in "hope" at the expense of experience. The Obama mania in 2008 and early 2009 was embarassing, pathetic, and down right wrong. I'm not saying McCain would have done better, I didn't really care for him either - and Palin is a joke - but how the left and the media treated Obama? Come off it. And Obama played into it, which is equally concerning. He's the weakest president since Carter. No doubt about that. of course, some thought of obama as a godsend. they were borne to be disappointed. that goes without saying. however, you can't say the man isn't great. even your boy bill o'reilly thinks of him as a great person. i don't think obama ever thinks of himself as a deity. that claim is an ad hominem. he was also put into an uncomfortable position due to the politicking going on. you can't say that the republicans right now are the party of no. they could really help change healthcare for the better (not saying anything about the bills on the floor right now, mind you), but are just playing knee-jerk in order to try and win votes in the 2010 elections. the hope and change vs. experience thing is bull and you know it. the hope and change ticket was the perfect campaign theme. the eight years we had under bush dramatically changed our country for the worse. the people with "experience" were the people who got us into all these messes in the first place. caro is right in that he hasn't lived up to his promise of transparency, on the most part. he does have a long time in office ahead of him, though. anything can happen.
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Sept 24, 2009 7:19:13 GMT -5
Obama was/is destined to fail. Why? Because people treated him as a God. They wanted to believe he was something that he's not, something great when he isn't. That's the problem with believing in "hope" at the expense of experience. what a stupid, stupid comment. as well as not every republican voter is white trash, not everyone who voted for obama really believed he is god or something. the usual voter is pretty realistic with it's expectations concerning politicians. and instead of whining how unintelligent people are who just have a different opinion than you, face the truth: obama is in power because the majority was fed up with bushs shit POLITICS!
|
|
|
Post by Beady’s Here Now on Sept 24, 2009 9:45:56 GMT -5
Obama was/is destined to fail. Why? Because people treated him as a God. They wanted to believe he was something that he's not, something great when he isn't. That's the problem with believing in "hope" at the expense of experience. what a stupid, stupid comment. as well as not every republican voter is white trash, not everyone who voted for obama really believed he is god or something. the usual voter is pretty realistic with it's expectations concerning politicians. and instead of whining how unintelligent people are who just have a different opinion than you, face the truth: obama is in power because the majority was fed up with bushs shit POLITICS! EXACTLY MY POINT. It wasn't a vote for Obama or for liberal policies, but rather a vote against Bush, despite him not even running. That's why 2008 wasn't a re-aligning election
|
|
|
Post by rmillis on Sept 24, 2009 11:22:21 GMT -5
Why didn't Romney win in 2008? He has the best business/financial background of any of the canidates! And we are in a RECESSION. He'll make a great president if elected.
|
|
l41n09
Madferrit Fan
Posts: 80
|
Post by l41n09 on Sept 24, 2009 13:16:16 GMT -5
what a stupid, stupid comment. as well as not every republican voter is white trash, not everyone who voted for obama really believed he is god or something. the usual voter is pretty realistic with it's expectations concerning politicians. and instead of whining how unintelligent people are who just have a different opinion than you, face the truth: obama is in power because the majority was fed up with bushs shit POLITICS! EXACTLY MY POINT. It wasn't a vote for Obama or for liberal policies, but rather a vote against Bush, despite him not even running. That's why 2008 wasn't a re-aligning election It was also a case of people not voting for McCain. Who I've seen you state you'd prefer in other threads. Would McCain be able to persuade the Russians to push sanctions on Iran? No.
|
|
|
Post by NYR on Sept 24, 2009 13:29:21 GMT -5
Why didn't Romney win in 2008? He has the best business/financial background of any of the canidates! And we are in a RECESSION. He'll make a great president if elected. those people were the ones that got us into that recession!
|
|
|
Post by webm@ster on Sept 24, 2009 14:22:31 GMT -5
Palin = NL4E's mama
|
|
|
Post by caro on Sept 24, 2009 18:09:16 GMT -5
OBAMACARE: TAXES FOR EVERYONE
By DICK MORRIS
Published on TheHill.com on September 22, 2009
Now that the various healthcare plans are being reduced to print, the financial details are emerging and with them a fundamental conclusion is becoming evident: The Obama plan is a giant tax increase for much of the American people (not just the rich).
Start with the mandate that falls on those whose welfare is the supposed object of the entire program -- the uninsured. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the average uninsured person or family will have to pay between 15 and 20 percent of his or their total income on health insurance (counting premiums, deductibles and co-payments) before any of the subsidy in the Baucus bill kicks in. Even in the more generous House bill, the tab that the uninsured must pay is very, very high.
Most uninsured would likely be quite happy to avoid paying this much of their income for health insurance. But they will be forced to shell out the money under the program. Others would want catastrophic coverage (which for the young would likely not be too costly) but the Obama program requires comprehensive insurance that is costly to satisfy the government requirement.
Having spent the entire campaign speaking about "affordable" coverage, it turns out the program is not at all affordable, but a massive new tax on the average uninsured American.
Then there is the tax on health insurance premiums that is to finance about a quarter of the subsidy for the uninsured. This tax, billed as only to be levied on "gold-plated" policies, will, in fact, reach down to the average American. The Baucus bill specifies that the tax of 35 percent would be put on all premiums over $8,000 for an individual and on proportionately higher premiums for families. Current estimates are that about one-tenth of the current health insurance policies would be taxable. But the $8,000 premium level that will trigger coverage is not indexed for inflation, let alone for medical inflation, which typically runs twice as high. ObamaCare will take effect in 2013. By then, the percentage of Americans subject to the tax will doubtless expand dramatically. Indeed, this trigger is a new Alternative Minimum Tax waiting to happen. As inflation pushes more and more Americans into tax eligibility, it will become a universal health insurance excise tax of 35 percent. While the tax will be imposed on health insurers and employers, it will, obviously, be passed along to the policyholders.
So if you are insured, you will increasingly have to pay 35 percent more for the privilege. And if you are uninsured, you will have to pay one-fifth of your income in premiums, deductibles and co-payments before any subsidy kicks in.
And then there is the final piece of the puzzle -- the $500 billion cut in Medicare that will pay for the bulk of the subsidy under the bill. We are literally slicing services to the elderly in order to transfer healthcare to others. Obama's claim that only "waste and inefficiency" in Medicare will be cut is, at best, disingenuous. Most of the cuts will be in reimbursement for doctors and hospitals. That will lead to less care, shorter office visits, fewer tests, fewer surgeries and less care. And it will lead to fewer doctors. As a result, a survey by the Investor's Business Daily indicates that 45 percent of all doctors would "consider retiring or closing their practices" if the Obama bill passes. The result will be a greater scarcity of medical services, even as the patient load expands by at least 30 million people.
Each of these fiscal pieces is movable. The left will pressure Obama to increase the subsidy to the uninsured. But that will necessitate raising the Medicare cut borne by the elderly or increasing the tax on health insurance policies -- or adding to the deficit. Any of these options will alienate moderate senators. Balancing these competing priorities only works if the taxpayers don't know what is going on.
If the average middle-income American family realizes that it will have to pay one-third more for health insurance or the uninsured learn that they will have to pay a fifth of their income to get insurance, they will make their dissatisfaction felt by their Democratic senators.
All of which begs the fundamental question: How willing are Democratic congressmen to commit political suicide? Are they willing to lose the elderly and to antagonize the uninsured as the health insurance cops chase them around the block? When does JFK's comment kick in: "Sometimes party loyalty asks too much"?
Bear in mind that Dick Morris was one of Clinton's advisors so he can hardly be labelled as a right wing nut
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Sept 24, 2009 20:00:37 GMT -5
EXACTLY MY POINT. It wasn't a vote for Obama or for liberal policies, but rather a vote against Bush, despite him not even running. ehm, not really your point. obama with his liberal point of view is somewhat the exact opposite of bushis ultra conservative neocons. so people voted for liberal politics because they wanted to have liberal politics. did you get it now? people didn't want george bushs politics anymore. it's not like they were saying "oh wait, i can't stand that monkeyface anymore... why not vote for that black kennedy dude" no. people said: enough with this bullshit! let's vote for the guy who is most promising to change our politics!
|
|
|
Post by caro on Sept 24, 2009 20:03:47 GMT -5
yeah as you're pointing, some did
he also got the anti bush vote (when bush wasnt even a candidate), he got the black vote and pretty much all the minorities votes because he's black
|
|
|
Post by halftheworld on Sept 24, 2009 20:11:52 GMT -5
yeah as you're pointing, some did he also got the anti bush vote (when bush wasnt even a candidate), he got the black vote and pretty much all the minorities votes because he's black yeah, but caro that is also a question of politics: minorities voted for him because they think his politics will represent their needs. just as all the religious radicals always vote for the republican candidate, cause they are afraid a democratic candidate could turn the us into sodom and gomorrah. what the hell is wrong with that? i am sick of NL4E calling all people with a different opinion stupid, manipulated idiots. fuck that! and again: an anti bush voter votes against bush because he doesn't want his politics anymore! and obama was the most promising of those two to get rid of bushs POLITICS. it is absolutely nonsense to say that people simply were voting against bush as a person as he wasn't even running for president. it is a ridiculous excuse so you don't have to think about wether his politics were wrong. people voted against his politics!
|
|