Maybe one day people will figure out there is no right and left, there is only business, the arguments just create a diversion.

Hm - only PARTLY correct. There is no right and left, there is only BIG GOVERNMENT. The arguments are just a diversion.

In his desire to have a Bi-Partisan government, he didn't push the Supermajority, to ramrod through all of the things he promised

Sigh. No. Just no. Obama is making the exact same mistake Bush did. He thought his popularity was so high that he could cram an UNPOPULAR agenda down everyone's throat with the co-operation of a lick-spittle Congress.

After 9/11 Bush was crazy popular. The radical left still hated him, but public support was high. So Bush decided to spend his political capital on an agenda that was NOT popular - the Iraq War. No one every was convinced that Iraq was worth going to war over. It wasn't popular. The political left saw this and jumped on the bandwagon. The left didn't 'create' anti-war hate. They just took shameless advantage of it. Bush kept pushing, went over the heads of the people, and did whatever he wanted because he had the Congress. Having Congress doing what he wanted (against public opinion) eroded his popularity badly until he left office a lame-duck with a legacy in shambles.

Barak Obama is doing the EXACT same thing. After election he was crazy popular. The radical right hated him, but public support was high. So Obama decided to spend his political capital on an agenda that is NOT POPULAR (Health Care, Cap & Tax, etc...). Polls are sour on his crappy health care plan, his cap & tax and a bazillion other things he's done. His stimulus plans have not accomplished jack, and people are steamed because all his 'shovel ready' jobs have resulted in nothing but higher unemployement. But Obama keeps pushing, against the will of the American people, and does whatever he wants because he has Congress. And doing whatever you want in the face of public opinion is a road to losing Congress, becoming a lame-duck one-termer and leaving office with a legacy in shambles.

Obama's only hope is to ditch his radical agenda and start focusing on what the people WANT instead of what HE wants.

You're republican, I get it.

No - you don't because I'm not. Haven't voted 'Republican' in the last 5 elections.

You're most likely well off, middle to upperclass, and want to keep it that way.

Partly. I don't want to 'keep it that way'. I'd like to move to the upper-upper class some day.

Working class problems don't concern you.

As a working professional I beg to differ. I'm not 'blue collar' if that's what you mean by 'working class', but I am a salaried employee and thus subject to the same issues that effect the bulk of Americans.

The healthcare reform was redundant in your eyes

Redundant? The Obama version of health care reform, yes. Reform of the health care system should take place at a regulatory level - not a 'government involvement' level. In that sense, yes, 'Democrat defined' health care reform very much is redundant (and a whole lot of other negative adjectives).

Given her local and national mishaps, the burden of proof is on people like you to prove she is not stupid.

Given that she had a rather successful gubernatorial term, I'd propose that as evidence that she is not 'stupid' as the neolib left wants to define her. Her roster of actual accomplishments is more robust than Barak Obama's was when he began his presidential run. I'm not saying she's a Rhode scholar, but there is no evidence that she's the brain-dead idiot the hard left wing likes to portray her as. As far as 'papers'? She's not in academia that I know of. She's had a think piece she published on health care in the NY Times. She's written a book. I know that liberals will just pooh-pooh and say that someone wrote them for her - so why even bother talking about them?

Again - I'm not a Palin booster or anything. I just find that the radical left wing is exhibiting a rather large degree of 'Derangement Syndrome' regarding her and those who like her. I also find that such hyperbolic claims are devoid of any substantive evidence and oozing with opinion and misinformation.

Haha "If Barak Obama has a BLT sandwich tomorrow for lunch, [Rupublicans] will try to ban bacon!" Priceless.

As always - this ends up being an example of how the extreme fringe right is used to falsely smear any and all opposition to Obama's radical left wing policies. To his credit (and I always give it where it is due) Barak Obama himself disagrees with this man's inaccurate conclusions.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8264166.stm

Bill is absolutely right in this clip. The vast majority of the objection to Obama is because of his politics, not his race. There are some goofballs who are along for the ride - just like the Iraq War protests had far-left wing kooks which Republicans attempted to portray as the majority. I call BS on both sides here. It is wearisome to have to deal with this over and over again every time an issue comes up. The forgetful, the ignorant, and the hypocritical have to be constantly reminded that this kind of propogandist mudslinging should be condemned no matter what side it comes from. As far as I'm concerned, this is just another guy falsely smearing millions of citizens because of the actions of a tiny minority.

What could be more important? In the near future, health care will be 16% of our GDP, far more than any other first world country. We're going to piss the riches of our nation down the toilet to prop up an insurance industry that does nothing but push paper around?

You - like Obama - offer a false choice. Health care costs are increasing. This is true. Something should probably be done to help reduce costs. This is also true. What is NOT true is that the proper, correct, wise course of action is to accept Obama's plan.

In fact, it is something of a misnomer to even call it "Obama's Plan". Obama doesn't really have a plan. For all his rhetoric and his speechifying, Obama has never once put forward a concrete, solid "plan" that is written down on paper for people to discuss. The plans we are discussing today are the House plans (of which there are 4 or 5 different ones in 'draft' form) and to a lesser extent the Senate plan (which is largely unknown and unwritten).

Now - there are some pretty alarming provisions in the House bill. Page 18 is a provision that will essentially put private insurance offerings out of business within a few short months to years. Page 838 has language that suggests government will be required to visit the homes of new parents to advise and consent on educational and social choices. Page 22 mandates audits of all companies who self-insure. Page 30 establishes a government committee to decide on patient health care options. Page 59 gives the Federal government involuntary, uncontested access to your personal checking accounts in order to draft for payment. Page 65 ensures taxpayer subsidization of Union health care in perpetuity. Page 72 and 84 forces all private insurance to use the government's rules, and also forces them to be 'part' of the government system (effectively making 'private' insurance an 'in name only' option). Pages 95 turns ACORN and other liberal interest groups into an army of 'enrollers' to recruit people into the plan. Page 102 automatically enrolls any Medicaid qualifier into the national plan. Page 124 shuts the door on suing the government plan for malpractice, price fixing, or any other consumer recourse for mistakes & constested decisions. Page 127 gives the government panels the right to set doctor wages. Page 145 forces all companies to auto-enroll employees in the system whether they participate or not. Page 149 forces all companies to pay health care for part time employees and family members. Page 150 forces anyone with a salary of 250K+ to pay a 6% tax if they don't participate in the national "option". Section 1233 gives the doctor the mandate to 'initiate' so-called 'end of life couselling' to patients, and who is to say that at some point the government won't apply pressure to doctors to do this less as an 'option' and more as a 'you really should do this...' approach? For government to even brush against these kinds of issues is creepy beyond belief.

Now - the neolibs of Congress and the Senate are defending the umbrella term "health care reform" by saying that the bill really DOESN'T do all these things. The problem is, there is concrete language right there in the bill that says YES the government IS going to get involved in these things. The American people have seen it, and they don't like it. The language in the bill is vague, indeterminiate, and smacks of the 'public option' really being a Trojan Horse to a nationalized, mandatory, compulsory system. And what is more - Barak Obama (and the neolibs) have for YEARS said that what they are really after is a nationalized system. Why in the world should we believe them when they say they DON'T want a national system when (A) the bill is leading towards nationalization and (B) they have said that's what they want?

The fact is that the Health Care plan that is going through Congress is a horrible plan, and the American people have seen it for what it is. They don't want it. And they are NOT satisfied with politicians who make vague, non-committal excuses that the bill really ISN'T what the people think it is (when all evidence contradicts them). Should health care be reformed? Probably. Should the government be solution to the problem? Pht - not in a BILLION years.

The demand being made by Obama and the neolibs that THIS PLAN be passed now now now now now NOW over the objections of the majority of the American people is not flying. There is no reason to be so hasty. It makes the neolibs look shifty, desperate, and untrustworthy - and the American people as a whole are not falling for it. If it is SOOOOOO all-fired important, shouldn't Obama have a plan on paper? Shouldn't Congress be willing to address the SPECIFIC objections over language in the bill rather than just whining "No no no - you're wrong!" Can't we just admit the House bill is crap and broom the whole thing and start over with a bill that DOESN'T contail all these suspicious provisions? If you're answer is "NO NO NO - we need THIS bill NOW!" then I have no choice but to conclude that you're a partisan zombie. Something this important should be done slowly, carefully, with rigorous testing, and with the consent of the majority of the American people.

More neolib bull. Here are a few examples of times when the news media DIDN'T care that huge numbers of bussed-in rent-a-mobs were being pulled from all over the country to bolster opposition to a cause...
1. Sarah Palin 'investigations'
2. Any/all Barak Obama rallies
3. Iraq War protests
4. Bush nominations to cabinets & judicial positions
5. Scooter Libby & Cheney 'leakgate' investigations

And so on. But, who cares? These are private citizens who want to get involved in the political process. Good for them. I don't care that the Democrats constantly use thier rent-a-mobs to spike the political process. That's how the game is played. But it sure stinks that neolibs like MadCow will praise this kind of "community activism" on one hand, and condemn it when they don't like it.

I'm no republican. If anything, I lean Libertarian. The Democrat party is digging its own grave if it is going to start treating THE PEOPLE like the enemy. This anger is a reflection of national dissatisfaction with Obama's overall agenda. He ran as a moderate, and in 8 month's he's been the most radical far-left kook America has ever seen (and we've seen FDR). The voters are not happy with it, and they're letting the congress know. The congress and their liberal flaks like MadCow have no clue what kind of repercussions they're going to get if they keep trying to pretend this is all just some far-right plot by a tiny number of extremists. They're fixing to turn 2010 into 1994 times ten, and turn Obama into a lame-duck, 1 term loser like Carter.

Barak Obama isn't a racist you silly man. He's an experienced empty suit raised in Chicago machine politics. Yeesh, some people.

No - a very calm, rational, unbiased look at Obama's words & deeds. I'm not 'defending' Beck. He puts things poorly, exaggerates, and has biases of his own. But I'm not defending Obama either. It is plain as day that Obama's reaction to Beergate was racially oriented. I'm open to an explanation about how Obama's words can be interpreted in any other way except as his personal prejudice in favor of a black man over a white cop.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAazd7VgrBE

This is a great video that puts its finger right on the heart of the matter. Time frame 3:03 onward. "What do we learn from this video?" asks the PC sensitivity trainer. Answers, "Yes - that only white people can be racist." Brilliant. You guys are the sensitivity trainer. You go around slavishly obeying the PC mantra that black people can't be racists. Well, guys like Reverent Wright, Jesse Jackson, Professor Gates, and Barak Obama prove you wrong.

M'eh - this is all a manufactured issue. Total baloney. What amuses me is the anger, the fury, the frothing at the mouth, the total loss of all common sense, decency, and civility on the GAY side of the debate. Prejean didn't say anything that a bazillion other people (including Barak Obama) have said. But because she said it they have a coniption fit.

Methinks the man-ladies doth protest too much. If the mere voicing of a simple statement of belief threatens them so much, then they must be REALLY insecure about themselves.

The nub of Banshee's comments are correct. There does not currently exist any form of energy that can replace fossil. The manufacturing, industrial, business, and residential power demands far outstrip 'green' energy's ability to supply power. Even a massive multi-pronged approach using geothermal, wind, tide, solar, methane farms, et al would barely make a dent. If we want to get off coal, we need to move to nuclear. There is no other viable option.

That doesn't even touch the massive expense of green energy. Green energy is not cheap by any stretch. It is actually the MOST expensive energy that exists. In acerage, material, maintainance, production cost, and distribution - green energy is on the order of 5-10 times more expensive than coal depending on which kind you are talking about. So unless you are prepared to quadruple your electic bill, you better pray that coal doesn't go anywhere or that the enviro-nazis untwist thier panties a few notches with nuclear.

Barak Obama said he wasn't going to raise taxes on the middle/lower class. Yet is stated desire to put the coal industry out of business would put an 'energy tax' on all Americans to the tune of several thousand dollars a year.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I politely disagree with your assertions as they are emotion based opinions rather than facts. America did not create 'a problem'. Hostile terrorists existed long before the US was settled. The US is not a worse people for trying to defeat terrorists. That is an value based opinion subject to debate. And terrorists hate anyone/anything that is convenient to thier cause du'jour. Pinning that sort of moving target onto ideas you disagree with politically is spurious.


I see we can add "Lacks reading comprehension skills" to your list of character flaws.

I said "we created this problem", an obvious reference to the current rash of so called "islamofascist" terrorists, not terrorism in general. Throughout the 1980's this country covertly spent one billion dollars to fund the Afghanistan Mujahideen in order to drive the Soviets out of Afghanistan. And then when they succeeded the US cut off all ties to the Afghani people, refusing to provide even one million dollars in aide to rebuild schools. And because of it, a power vacuum formed that allowed the Taliban and al-Qaeda (the CIA assets led by Osama bin Laden) to seize control and turn hundreds of thousands of young men against the US. Or as the man behind the money for Operation Cyclone, Charles Wilson, once said, "These things happened. They were glorious and they changed the world... and then we fucked up the endgame." So yeah, the US created this problem. Try getting your history from somewhere other than Faux News.


As far as 'reaching out' being the solution to 'the problem'? In a remarkably short period of time, Barak Obama has very effectively proven that reaching out is an incredibly ineffective tactic. Reaching out efforts from Barak Obama have been rejected by France, Germany, England, Russia, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuala, Nicaragua, Hamas, Al Quieda, and Somali pirates. Why should I ascribe to the notion that 'reaching out' is going to decrease hostility when all factual examples contradict that concept? For example, Clinton 'reached out' to terrorists and a fat lot of good it did him in Mogudishu.


Actions speak louder than words, and sadly diplomacy is really just a lot of empty words. But with the current economic climate, we're really at a loss to be able to do much more than talk. Regardless the damage done to diplomacy by the previous administration will be a constant burden for years to come.

In the not too distant past we have had it within our power to improve the quality of life for millions of people in third world nations. But whenever we make an effort, we do the least we can and often leave places in worse situations than we found them.

Face it, you and your ilk would rather rationalize torturing, fighting, and killing our "enemies"; than to admit that we created this problem, that we have the tools to fix it, and yet we refuse to be the better people and reach out to end this nonsense. You just cling to the myth that "they hate us for our freedoms." No, they hate us because of people like YOU.

I politely disagree with your assertions as they are emotion based opinions rather than facts. America did not create 'a problem'. Hostile terrorists existed long before the US was settled. The US is not a worse people for trying to defeat terrorists. That is an value based opinion subject to debate. And terrorists hate anyone/anything that is convenient to thier cause du'jour. Pinning that sort of moving target onto ideas you disagree with politically is spurious.

As far as 'reaching out' being the solution to 'the problem'? In a remarkably short period of time, Barak Obama has very effectively proven that reaching out is an incredibly ineffective tactic. Reaching out efforts from Barak Obama have been rejected by France, Germany, England, Russia, Afghanistan, Iran, North Korea, Cuba, Venezuala, Nicaragua, Hamas, Al Quieda, and Somali pirates. Why should I ascribe to the notion that 'reaching out' is going to decrease hostility when all factual examples contradict that concept? For example, Clinton 'reached out' to terrorists and a fat lot of good it did him in Mogudishu.

Funny how that defense (along with "just following orders") didn't hold up at the Nuremburg trials.

Now that you’ve officially Godwin-ed the thread, does it mean the space/time continuum is about to collapse? How about this? Barak Obama yesterday said that he was “not going to hold agents responsible for following orders…” How does it make you feel to know that Obama believes the Nuremburg defense is valid?

No matter how many ways you ratonalise it, this is torture. Torture is wrong. There is no way to justify it.

I already said that waterboarding is torture. If you thought otherwise then you are mistaken. But I disagree with your generic comment that ‘torture is wrong’. You can only make such a statement when you have supplied the EXACT definition of what torture is. If you leave the word vague and fuzzy then it could mean anything. The act of confining someone involuntarily is torture, but I wouldn’t say it was ‘wrong’.

Broad, sweeping generalizations go nowhere. Define what you consider to be an acceptable form of pressure to obtain intel from uncooperative detainees. Explain how your choice is not torture.

There is no argument about whether this is torture or not...blah blah blah...you $%&!

Read what I wrote. I already said WB is torture. Your lack of the ability to comprehend a VERY simple and clear statement is not a sign of my ignorance. Just so you can't miss it, I'll say it again. Waterboarding is torture. As a form of torture it is both effective while at the same time being relatively benign. It is scary, panic inducing, freak-out horrifying – but causes no damage. CIA says waterboarding terrorists helped to prevent attacks in Los Angeles. Hundreds, maybe thousands of lives saved and all we had to do is waterboard a guy like Zubaydah. I call that a pretty good deal.

The artist drew an ape.
Apes are sorta like monkeys.
It is implied that the psudo-monkey wrote a congressional bill.
A version of the bill was written by senate democrats.
Barak Obama was once a senate democrat.
Obama is half-black.

Obviously the artist was calling Obama a monkey based on his race.

I DEMAND OUTRAGE!

I giggled myself silly when I read this comment. Leaving Bush out of it, the hero worship is HILARIOUS. Calm down, ladies and gentlemen. Someone is going to get trampled in the rush to lick Obama's handsome, eloquent, apologetic feet.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Get real everyone. Barak Obama himself had NOTHING to do with the vetting process except the initial "check this guy". Do you think the President has the time to go do the literal mountain of fact-finding needed for the hundreds of people in his administration? Here is what really happens... AIDE1: "Mr President we checked and Tom Daschle looks OK." OBAMA: "OK, let's go" (fist bump).

And as far as the "Oh wow - that's how a President should act"... You people must rent yourselves out as Hoovers you are such suck-ups. Bush accepted blame & apologized for a lot of things, but you never cut him one inch of slack. Now you're all falling over yourselves to say how wonderful Obama is for doing it. What a bunch of brainless Obama-zombie tools. Your two-facedness and partisan hack nature make you completely pathetic sell-outs.

I never at any time during Bush2 would sell-out my principles. Bush did TONS of things I thought were incredibly stupid and I said so. Farm subsidies, immigration 'reform', education bill, reckless spending and a bazillion other things. And I want him held responsible and blamed for all that crap, so when he did them I criticized him like he deserved for being an over-spending jackass. But you Obama-zombies... Obama could re-open Gitmo2 under the name "Obamaland" (which he probably will) and you'd say he was a genius. Obama could declare war based on faulty intelligence and you'd fall over yourselves to be the first person in line to french-kiss his duodenum.