Obama '08?

@georgeob1,

What is WEFT, asshole?

@plainoldme,

Quote:

Most of those things were done by every president after WWII. The one thing that I bothered to read in your boring list was unique was done after Congress presented him with something to sign, which, does not make it illegal.

This is such a true and logical statement against the conservative ranting here that it bears repeating.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

When did I say you are are in the same room with ican? I didn't. I said you hang out with and agree with.

Have you noticed that no matter how ridiculous an okie post is or how absurd an ican post may be that their posts always have two votes? They support each other because no one else would.

Unless, of course, they are one and the same.

0 Replies

@okie,

Quote:

Parados, I would challenge you to explain your political views here in honesty and some depth

He has been doing just that for years.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

He is spineless, dishonest, with no decency

You forgot bullying, foul-tempered and effeminate.

0 Replies

Quote:

We MUST stop the DREAM ACT!
Fellow Patriots,

Big government Democrats are working hard to shove yet another unpopular, unwanted piece of legislation down the throats of taxpayers... this time in the form of the DREAM ACT. The Defense Authorization Bill will be voted on at 2:15 PM Eastern time on Tuesday, September 21.

The DREAM ACT will dramatically push up spending and increase the cost of higher education for every state. The increase is even more extreme for states with large illegal immigrant populations.

The bill forces states to give taxpayer fueled financial aid to illegal immigrants, forces states to allow illegal immigrants to take advantage of in-state tuition, and worst of all, there is virtually no accountability for the funding involved in the bill.

This is yet another outrageous bill pushed forth by Democrats and it must be stopped. ...

For Liberty,
-Eric Odom

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

The DREAM ACT will dramatically push up spending and increase the cost of higher education for every state. The increase is even more extreme for states with large illegal immigrant populations.

Wrong. It doesn't force any state to do anything of the sort. Student Loans are ran by the Federal Government - not State governments.

It only provides access to education for people who are here - in most cases not of their own free will - and want to get educated. What's wrong with that?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Quote:

http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?Article_ID=19798&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=DPD
New Health Law Puts Seniors at Risk

On Wednesday, former Comptroller General David M. Walker, National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) Senior Fellow Thomas R. Saving, and NCPA President and Kellye Wright Fellow John C. Goodman held a briefing in Washington, D.C. At the briefing, the NCPA presented a new analysis that concludes finding accessible and quality care for the elderly and disabled will become increasingly difficult in the coming years under the new health care law because of draconian cuts in payments to doctors and hospitals:

Medicare payment rates will fall below the rates paid by Medicaid (for low-income families) by the end of this decade and will fall even further behind all other payers in succeeding decades.

Whereas Medicaid pays about 80 percent of what private insurance pays today, the payment rates will fall to two-thirds of private payment by the end of this decade and one-half of private payment by midcentury.

Just as Medicaid patients must often seek care at community health centers and safety net hospitals today, seniors could face similar access problems in the near future.

In terms of dollars spent:

The annual reduction in spending will reach $2,300 per beneficiary by 2020 and $3,844 by 2030.

By the time today's teenagers reach the retirement age, one-third of Medicare will effectively be gone.

If seniors are allowed to make up for the cuts in Medicare spending with out-of-pocket payments -- something not allowed under current law -- they will need to spend 10 percent of the average Social Security check by 2017.

Fifty years from now, seniors will need to spend half of their Social Security income to offset the decline in Medicare spending.

Unless the law is changed by future Congresses, Medicare beneficiaries will be pushed into a separate health care system and not have the same access to care as the rest of the population, according to the report.

Source: "New Health Law Puts Seniors at Risk," National Center for Policy Analysis, September 8, 2010.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

You know why you can't trust this source, Ican? Because it doesn't address it to "fellow patriots" or some such bullshit and it doesn't sign off with a corny phrase like "fight for liberty".

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

okie would have the gall to ask what our political view are, then forget what we've said all along. Hopeless.

How many times have I posted the simple fact that I am a registered Independent, and have voted for republicans. He still identifies me as a liberal.

Hopeless.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I didn't participate in this forum for close to three years, but, despite the hiatus, I remembered exactly where okie was coming from. I also remembered that you described yourself as an independent back in the day. I suspect okie likes to control any situation he is in and asking us obnoxious questions seems to him like control.

Now, I took some time and answered his questions, with the exception of the one that was too murky to answer. However, I still attempted an answer. Maybe he was scared off because I told him to never ask them again. You think?

1 Reply

Apparently there is a new book by Woodward out concerning the Obama administration and honestly unless there is more that has so far come out; I am wondering where's the beef?

It described the infighting concerning Afghanistan and what the goal should be and how to go about it, but really, didn't we already know that?

Bob Woodward book details Obama battles with advisers over exit plan for Afghan war

1 Reply

@revelette,

Yup, Woodward like everybody else who gets old gets to be a bit slow on the outtake.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

No, you have not explained your beliefs about my questions.

What strong emotion can Obama have about the US that isn't love or hate?
My answer is NONE. So if he doesn't love the country but still has a strong emotion than he must hate it.
Now tell us what you believe.

I have posted this many many times before, but will try to explain it again for parados. I do not think Obama either loves or hates America. I think he has some hangups and resentments about America, and I think there are some things he dislikes about America, maybe some things he likes, but his strongest emotion is toward himself and his own agenda, his power and messianic image that the press has chosen to grant the man. I think Obama has bought into that image of himself, that he is somehow some chosen leader that has the ability to change America into some image that he has in his mind, that will somehow make America more fair, more just, and more wonderful.

Quote:

If Marxists take over, install a dictator and turn the US into a socialist country will the US be destroyed?
My answer is yes. Installing a dictator would destroy the US as we know it and force the elimination of the US Constitution.
Now tell us what you believe.

OK okie. I have explained my beliefs in response to my 2 questions. Now it is your turn.
[/quote]
That is surprising you would post an answer like that, because the people you are constantly defending and apologizing for here, they do in fact display characteristics of having Marxist or socialist tendencies, aspects, or sympathies. Sure, Obama has not said he is Marxist, but he has Marxist friends and appointees of his. Why would he appoint such people and admire such people if he did not have similar philosophies. We've been through this a thousand times, but for the very dense among us, we aren't talking about casual acquaintances or somebody Obama sees eating in the same restaurant, we are talking about mentors and close associates. Also, Obama worked tirelessly to pass Obamacare legislation, which there is reason to believe his ultimate goal is single payer government health care, which is and would be one of the most socialist policies ever instituted in the history of the country, if his goal is ultimately attained. We could talk about many other initiatives of his, that I think all have a common thread, that of greater central planning or socialistic goal.

And surely if you had read Obama's book, studied his statements about capitalism and greed, and studied his church's creed, which is Black Liberation Theology, those things certainly do not support the idea that Obama is a full freedom loving free market capitalist at heart. And so if you oppose Marxism to the hilt and support free markets, how you can defend Obama is a complete mystery to me, parados. You have to be a bit ingenuous to put it mildly, either that or you are really naive, one or the other.

With that said about the illogical nature of your answer, my answer about Marxism and a dictator, I do not think it would destroy the country immediately, because I think the fabric and culture of the American people would probably reverse any initial effort in that regard. If allowed to persist for a number of years, perhaps ten, I do think it would go a long way toward destroying the country as it relates to our constitutional way of life, our economy, and values. It would not destroy the geography, America the Beautiful, or the long held beliefs and faith of a fairly significant portion of the American people however, so I do think complete destruction would not be a sure thing, I think it could be reversed. I think however that the best time to reverse something is when we see it take shape, and that means opposing Obama and all of his political philosophies and initiatives now, parados.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie would have the gall to ask what our political view are, then forget what we've said all along. Hopeless.

How many times have I posted the simple fact that I am a registered Independent, and have voted for republicans. He still identifies me as a liberal.

Hopeless.

I've been away from this board for a couple of days I think, so thanks for the insults along with your answers, ci.
I do read your posts, but often they are hard to define in terms of your root beliefs. To explain again what mine are, briefly, I believe in as small a government as is practical to do what it is constitutionally mandated to do, and along with that I strongly believe in individual rights and responsibilities to do for ourselves. Private property rights are a chief cornerstone of the principles I believe in.

I believe the federal government is intended mostly to maintain our national security and defense, and beyond that, things like housing, education, agricultural and land management, police and fire protection, pretty much all of that should be done on the local level with the most practical level of government as is deemed necessary and practical. The closer the people receiving the service are to the government that provides it, the more efficient that service will be. Example, I believe any public education should be left to local jurisdictions with local school boards making most of the decisions. To accomplish this, he who controls the purse strings usually calls the shots, so the federal government should not be spending money on K-12 education, it should all be locally funded. It is time for we the people to assume the responsibilities that the constitution wants us to have and do. That is the way public education was done decades ago, and it produced the most educated and technologically advanced country on the face of the earth. I also believe the private sector should be involved in as much as is practical, perhaps education is one field that it could and should be expanded in. Why not try what has been proven to work? Besides, why pay bureaucrats in Washington billions for pushing paper? Inefficiency is part of the deficit problem that we have caused ourselves by central planning.

To sum it up quickly, ci, I am a free market guy, smaller government along with private property rights, individual freedom and responsibility for individuals, including our own health care. And so I examine every political issue and policy under the light of my basic philosophy, which is overwhelmingly conservative. I would be fascinated to read your philosophy in a sentence or two. What are your basic principles that you believe?

2 Replies

Has this been posted yet? A few more calls for impeachment these days. Apparently ican is not the only one that believes it needs to be done. I believe that thousands if not millions believe it is warranted:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/22/the-case-for-impeachment-142967590/
Pertinent quotes from the article:

President Obama has engaged in numerous high crimes and misdemeanors. The Democratic majority in Congress is in peril as Americans reject his agenda. Yet more must be done: Mr. Obama should be impeached.

He is slowly - piece by painful piece - erecting a socialist dictatorship. We are not there - yet. But he is putting America on that dangerous path. He is undermining our constitutional system of checks and balances; subverting democratic procedures and the rule of law; presiding over a corrupt, gangster regime; and assaulting the very pillars of traditional capitalism. Like Venezuela's leftist strongman, Hugo Chavez, Mr. Obama is bent on imposing a revolution from above - one that is polarizing America along racial, political and ideological lines. Mr. Obama is the most divisive president since Richard Nixon. His policies are Balkanizing the country. It's time for him to go.

He has abused his office and violated his oath to uphold the Constitution. His health care overhaul was rammed through Congress. It was - and remains - opposed by a majority of the people. It could only be passed through bribery and political intimidation. The Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, the $5 billion Medicaid set-aside for Florida Sen. Bill Nelson - taxpayer money was used as a virtual slush fund to buy swing votes. Moreover, the law is blatantly unconstitutional: The federal government does not have the right to coerce every citizen to purchase a good or service. This is not in the Constitution, and it represents an unprecedented expansion of power.

......

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

That is the way public education was done decades ago, and it produced the most educated and technologically advanced country on the face of the earth.

Which certainly is based on your own definition of "decades".

okie wrote:

I would be fascinated to read your philosophy in a sentence or two. What are your basic principles that you believe?

So, since you used more than a dozen of sentences: what exactly are your basic principles in 1 (one) sentence or 2 (two)?

1 Reply

Leftist Liberals favor a federal government that steals from those who have more, gives some of what they steal to those who have less, and gives the rest to itself.

Leftist Liberals who claim this is a lie are providing evidence that they are liars!

0 Replies

@okie,

Well, the Washington Times had had several similar opinions the last couple of months - I think, you could post at least every month since President Obama is your President.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

So maybe they are more informed than you are on the subject? Maybe you need to read their opinions more seriously to see if their points are valid? You seem to be so interested in our politics here, so maybe you need to be more balance in your information?

3 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know