The Huffington Slime

apple0154 said:
No, that's what you think.

When someone claims to stand for something I expect they do stand for it. Is that way of thinking strange to you?
Click to expand...
So when someone claims to have the most open administration ever to arrive in DC...you would expect that? Did you get it ?

When someone claims to have open debate televised on CSPAN for all to witness, you would expect that, right? Did you get it ?

When someones claims to have ended the war, but fails to mention it was the previous President that signed the agreement to bring the troops home and never mentions he actually voted against the surge that made the troop pullout possible and it was actually the previous Presidents policy....does that satisfy your craving for ethics in politicans...????
 
bravo said:
So when someone claims to have the most open administration ever to arrive in DC...you would expect that? Did you get it ?

When someone claims to have open debate televised on CSPAN for all to witness, you would expect that, right? Did you get it ?

When someones claims to have ended the war, but fails to mention it was the previous President that signed the agreement to bring the troops home and never mentions he actually voted against the surge that made the troop pullout possible and it was actually the previous Presidents policy....does that satisfy your craving for ethics in politicans...????
Click to expand...

When someone starts a war by lying and continues it for 5 years and then, a few months before an election, promises to end the war...well, I suppose some folks will believe anything.

Repubs are still bitching about Obama's withdrawal. Boehner, the House Minority Leader, is still going on about the arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal. Do you really believe the Repubs would have brought that many troops home?

As for an open administration and debates what the American people got was a start for universal health care. Did anyone want to hear asinine dialogue like "death panels" when almost every industrialized country has a comprehensive health plan?

Obama did want open dialogue. He gave it his best shot as soon as he was elected and he quickly saw the lies and misinformation pouring in. The goal of the Repubs was to poison the talks, not to be constructive. They'd pick a story about some guy waiting for a hip operation in Canada while 43 million Americans had no insurance. Or how France's health plan was costly forgetting to mention it covered doctors making house calls.

Whatever criticism people may level at Obama and the Dems one can not deny they get the job done. Their priority is the health and lives of Americans. Do you really want to nit-pick how they accomplish that?
 
apple0154 said:
When someone starts a war by lying and continues it for 5 years and then, a few months before an election, promises to end the war...well, I suppose some folks will believe anything.

Repubs are still bitching about Obama's withdrawal. Boehner, the House Minority Leader, is still going on about the arbitrary deadlines for withdrawal. Do you really believe the Repubs would have brought that many troops home?

As for an open administration and debates what the American people got was a start for universal health care. Did anyone want to hear asinine dialogue like "death panels" when almost every industrialized country has a comprehensive health plan?

Obama did want open dialogue. He gave it his best shot as soon as he was elected and he quickly saw the lies and misinformation pouring in. The goal of the Repubs was to poison the talks, not to be constructive. They'd pick a story about some guy waiting for a hip operation in Canada while 43 million Americans had no insurance. Or how France's health plan was costly forgetting to mention it covered doctors making house calls.

Whatever criticism people may level at Obama and the Dems one can not deny they get the job done. Their priority is the health and lives of Americans. Do you really want to nit-pick how they accomplish that?
Click to expand...
Just can't handle the truth, huh..?

An apologist from the get go...but thats what you pinheads do best....
Who us...? well you did it too....thats always the defense...and then always change the subject desperately trying to gain an advantage...and all you accomplish is to make an ass of yourselves in the process...

BooHoo...Obama did want open dialogue but couldn't do it?...
Hes the fuckin' POTUS and couldn't arrange for open debate?
You're a joke .....
 
bravo said:
Just can't handle the truth, huh..?

An apologist from the get go...but thats what you pinheads do best....
Who us...? well you did it too....thats always the defense...and then always change the subject desperately trying to gain an advantage...and all you accomplish is to make an ass of yourselves in the process...

BooHoo...Obama did want open dialogue but couldn't do it?...
Hes the fuckin' POTUS and couldn't arrange for open debate?
You're a joke .....
Click to expand...

He offered an open debate. All he requested was not rehashing the old, tired, worn out arguments but the Repubs wouldn't co-operate. How do you propose he force someone to debate intelligently? You seem to think you have all the answers so let's hear the answer to that.

All we heard from the Repubs on health care was death panels and not being able to afford it. Dozens of countries....communist and socialist and capitalist, large and small, rich and poor...they all have comprehensive health plans. The vast majority of citizens in EVERY democratic country insist on keeping their universal plan.

Sorry, but Obama dismissed the Repubs like one would unruly children which is the way they acted. They couldn't produce ONE country where the universal plan was scrapped due to the people voting to return to a "pay or suffer" system. Not one single country out of dozens.

As the POTUS he may have been unable to get a decent debate going but he did have the power to refuse to listen to the Repub nonsense and that's exactly what he did. By not being influenced by disruptive, spiteful, childhood behavior he showed what values and honor are.

He got health care started and the troops are coming home. Not a bad legacy after only two years in office. Kind of puts the cowboy to shame, doesn't it?
 
apple0154 said:
He offered an open debate. All he requested was not rehashing the old, tired, worn out arguments but the Repubs wouldn't co-operate. How do you propose he force someone to debate intelligently? You seem to think you have all the answers so let's hear the answer to that.

All we heard from the Repubs on health care was death panels and not being able to afford it. Dozens of countries....communist and socialist and capitalist, large and small, rich and poor...they all have comprehensive health plans. The vast majority of citizens in EVERY democratic country insist on keeping their universal plan.

Sorry, but Obama dismissed the Repubs like one would unruly children which is the way they acted. They couldn't produce ONE country where the universal plan was scrapped due to the people voting to return to a "pay or suffer" system. Not one single country out of dozens.

As the POTUS he may have been unable to get a decent debate going but he did have the power to refuse to listen to the Repub nonsense and that's exactly what he did. By not being influenced by disruptive, spiteful, childhood behavior he showed what values and honor are.

He got health care started and the troops are coming home. Not a bad legacy after only two years in office. Kind of puts the cowboy to shame, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

Yes you want a debate where everyone agrees with you and then if people don't agree with you you go ahead and do what you want anyway. The end justifys the means.
 
apple0154 said:
He offered an open debate. All he requested was not rehashing the old, tired, worn out arguments but the Repubs wouldn't co-operate. How do you propose he force someone to debate intelligently? You seem to think you have all the answers so let's hear the answer to that.

All we heard from the Repubs on health care was death panels and not being able to afford it. Dozens of countries....communist and socialist and capitalist, large and small, rich and poor...they all have comprehensive health plans. The vast majority of citizens in EVERY democratic country insist on keeping their universal plan.

Sorry, but Obama dismissed the Repubs like one would unruly children which is the way they acted. They couldn't produce ONE country where the universal plan was scrapped due to the people voting to return to a "pay or suffer" system. Not one single country out of dozens.

As the POTUS he may have been unable to get a decent debate going but he did have the power to refuse to listen to the Repub nonsense and that's exactly what he did. By not being influenced by disruptive, spiteful, childhood behavior he showed what values and honor are.

He got health care started and the troops are coming home. Not a bad legacy after only two years in office. Kind of puts the cowboy to shame, doesn't it?
Click to expand...

you are no different than the people you put down saying they blindly followed Bush.
 
cawacko said:
you are no different than the people you put down saying they blindly followed Bush.
Click to expand...

Agreeing with Obama is not blindly following him. There can be no more concrete evidence offered regarding government health care. There is not one country that reverted to a "pay or suffer" system and every country started out with one. Dozens of countries. Not one decided a government plan was inferior.

Agreeing with Obama is not blindly following. It's using common sense and intelligence.
 
cawacko said:
Yes you want a debate where everyone agrees with you and then if people don't agree with you you go ahead and do what you want anyway. The end justifys the means.
Click to expand...

The arguments against made no sense. To argue the richest country in the world can not afford a medical plan is absurd. To argue governments with health care plans have death panels is absurd.

Tired, worn out, absurd arguments instead of constructive arguments.
 
apple0154 said:
Agreeing with Obama is not blindly following him. There can be no more concrete evidence offered regarding government health care. There is not one country that reverted to a "pay or suffer" system and every country started out with one. Dozens of countries. Not one decided a government plan was inferior.

Agreeing with Obama is not blindly following. It's using common sense and intelligence.
Click to expand...

His Presidency has been about more than just health care reform although that's all you go to with your 'every other country does it' argument. Each thing Obama's done you think has been great along with your cheerleading pom-pom's you like to post. Many people are hacks it's not like you are the first. Just quit with the trying to call others out for what you're doing and claiming others to be hypocrites.
 
apple0154 said:
The arguments against made no sense. To argue the richest country in the world can not afford a medical plan is absurd. To argue governments with health care plans have death panels is absurd.

Tired, worn out, absurd arguments instead of constructive arguments.
Click to expand...

Yes many foreignors such as yourself who cling to the welfare state model cannot understand how people can believe in empowering individuals and allowing freer markets with more choices. In reality the old welfare dependency model is what's tired and worn out.
 
bravo said:
Just can't handle the truth, huh..?

An apologist from the get go...but thats what you pinheads do best....
Who us...? well you did it too....thats always the defense...and then always change the subject desperately trying to gain an advantage...and all you accomplish is to make an ass of yourselves in the process...

BooHoo...Obama did want open dialogue but couldn't do it?...
Hes the fuckin' POTUS and couldn't arrange for open debate?
You're a joke .....
Click to expand...

Dialogue = conversation between two or more persons. The party of NO refused to take part.
 
christiefan915 said:
Dialogue = conversation between two or more persons. The party of NO refused to take part.
Click to expand...
Looks like a dialogue to me:

Democrat: We want to toss out the concept of limited government, nix the Constitution and have a huge new program that your constituents can pay for and will make ours beholden to us. Can we count on your support?

Republican: No.
 
christiefan915 said:
Dialogue = conversation between two or more persons. The party of NO refused to take part.
Click to expand...

:lies:

There was no debate, public or private because the "party of DON'T KNOW" didn't want it....wrote at bill in secret, didn't read it, and would not allow the time for others to read it....and the list continues...
 
christiefan915 said:
The writer was a blogger, not Huffpo staff. He offered his satirical opinion and the staff decided it was inappropriate, so they took it down. That's a heckuva lot more decent than beck's blog, with its many lying, scurrilous comments about people he disagrees with.
Click to expand...

Cite the lies you speak of, idiot
 
cawacko said:
Yes many foreignors such as yourself who cling to the welfare state model cannot understand how people can believe in empowering individuals and allowing freer markets with more choices. In reality the old welfare dependency model is what's tired and worn out.
Click to expand...

Freer markets are great unless it means millions of people have to go without medical care. Those millions have no choice whatsoever.

As for the old model being worn out I come back to the fact not one country has a viable politician campaigning on eliminating their government medical plan. Not one politician in one democratic country.

If there was any movement or will of the people to revert to a "pay or suffer" system...well, we all know politicians. There would be no lack of candidates jumping on that wagon but there isn't one. Not one.

I don't know what better "proof" can be offered. People from all walks of life, be it political, economic and religious spanning all age groups, they all desire a government health plan ensuring everyone has access to medical care.

The only area for discussion/argument concerns the implementation, not whether one is good or bad. It's unfortunate the Republicans couldn't move past the "good or bad" stage and contribute significantly to the implementation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top