The hate for Obama

Sand · 17-08-2009 10:15pm

Yeah, at his age hes probably dead by now anyway.

JohnMc1 · 17-08-2009 11:56pm

What a classy remark.:rolleyes:

jank · 18-08-2009 12:11am

JohnMc1 wrote: »

yeah because Obama doubling the deficit [and will add more to it] was a better alternative than McCain. Yep can't fault that logic. :rolleyes:

And McCains economic plan was what? Cutting more taxes but not spending. You can bet your life that there would have been a stimulus plan as well.
Didnt he suspend his campaign to resuce the banks?:pac:

So the defecit would be probably as big now, but as Sand said he would probably be dead from the stress and you would have that fool Palin in the chair, not a great thought!
Hmmmm no I would rather have the status que. You are fooling yourself if you think that the states would be sooo different now.

tolosenc · 18-08-2009 12:33am

jank wrote: »

And McCains economic plan was what? Cutting more taxes but not spending. You can bet your life that there would have been a stimulus plan as well.
Didnt he suspend his campaign to resuce the banks?:pac:

So the defecit would be probably as big now, but as Sand said he would probably be dead from the stress and you would have that fool Palin in the chair, not a great thought!
Hmmmm no I would rather have the status que. You are fooling yourself if you think that the states would be sooo different now.

There would have been a stimulus plan, of sorts. However, it would have yielded results by now. It would have largely consisted of tax cuts, and decreased spending, correct.

Palin and Obama have almost the same amount of experience in high profile political posts, so Palin would be no better than Obama, but hardly worse.

Obama's appproval ratings will be below 50% next month, and could well be at Fianna Fáil levels by the end of the year. He's not the messiah. He's a very naughty boy false prophet.

JohnMc1 wrote: »

What a classy remark.

I think (and hope) that that was sarcasm...

ChocolateSauce · 18-08-2009 12:44am

Toulousain wrote: »

Palin and Obama have almost the same amount of experience in high profile political posts, so Palin would be no better than Obama, but hardly worse.

Maybe if experience was the only measure.

jank · 18-08-2009 12:53am

Toulousain wrote: »

There would have been a stimulus plan, of sorts. However, it would have yielded results by now..

So McCain's stimulus plan would have the American economy rocking again while Obamas plan is not worth the paper is printed on (pardon the pun). Great logic!

Toulousain wrote: »

It would have largely consisted of tax cuts, and decreased spending, correct.

Like what Bush said? GOP always promise to cut spending but point out the last GOP president to have done this.... please..

Toulousain wrote: »

Palin and Obama have almost the same amount of experience in high profile political posts, so Palin would be no better than Obama, but hardly worse.
.

Oh please, seriously. Even her own party are starting to tell her "shut the **** up"! Comparing the Obama to Palin in terms of capacity for the white house is like comparing an award winning cheddar to eazi singles.
Did you even see the Katie Couric interview?

See couldn't even name a supreme court judgment that she disagreed with other than rove vs wade. To see her floundering was cringe worthy.

"I can see Russia from my state so that makes me qualified on foreign policy"

Toulousain wrote: »

Obama's approval ratings will be below 50% next month, and could well be at Fianna Fáil levels by the end of the year. He's not the messiah. He's a very naughty boy false prophet.

Again show me a president who has not started with high approval ratings which then begins to wain? It always happens. I know I never claimed him to be the messiah and in fact 99.9% of his supporters would be of the same opinion. He is a man at the end of the day. Claiming that he is a prophet is an easy dig from the right as it makes him out to be "elitist".

A naughty boy? Drop the satire.

sceptre · 18-08-2009 2:43am

Speaking of naughty boys, less testiness please. There are other people on the Internet as well, not a playground etc etc.

JohnMc1 · 18-08-2009 10:35am

Toulousain wrote: »

I think (and hope) that that was sarcasm...

That was in response to Sands comment. Its still amazing how the "humane" libs spent the whole campaign praying [even though most of them claim to be atheists] for McCain to die.

tolosenc · 18-08-2009 10:49am

jank wrote: »

So McCain's stimulus plan would have the American economy rocking again while Obamas plan is not worth the paper is printed on (pardon the pun). Great logic!

We obviously don't know what McCain's policy would have been, but given his views about fiscal responsibility, we have an idea. But tax cuts/breaks is what got Japan, France and Germany levelling out so fast. Obama has upped taxes and crippled the US with debt, he makes Bush look like Warren Buffet.

jank wrote: »

Like what Bush said? GOP always promise to cut spending but point out the last GOP president to have done this.... please..

Not the first time I've had to say this since last summer, but McCain and Bush are two very different people ideologically.

jank wrote: »

Oh please, seriously. Even her own party are starting to tell her "shut the **** up"!

And Obama's isn't?

jank wrote: »

Comparing the Obama to Palin in terms of capacity for the white house is like comparing an award winning cheddar to eazi singles.

Do you write for the Huffington Post?

jank wrote: »

To see her floundering was cringe worthy.

The Gates controversy, flip-flopping over Obamacare, Armenians in Turkey, North Korea... Those were all painful.

jank wrote: »

"I can see Russia from my state so that makes me qualified on foreign policy"

I believe that's a Saturday Night Live quote, no?

I'm Canadian. In May of this year, Obama reffered to Stephen Harper as the President of Canada. If he doesn't know even the most simple fact about the political system of the United States' closest neighbour, he's hardly the Foreign Policy/International Relations guru people like you make him out to be.

jank wrote: »

Again show me a president who has not started with high approval ratings which then begins to wain? It always happens.

Yes. But never by this much, this early.

jank wrote: »

I know I never claimed him to be the messiah and in fact 99.9% of his supporters would be of the same opinion.

I beg to differ. (on the 99.9% figure...)

jank wrote: »

Claiming that he is a prophet is an easy dig from the right as it makes him out to be "elitist".

It's not a claim, but an observation on how he was viewed by the legions of "Yes We Can"-ers that followed his every breath, bite and bowel movement.

jank wrote: »

A naughty boy? Drop the satire.

That's not satire, I'm just incapable of saying that someone "is not the messiah", without sating that they are a naughty boy. :P

I blame Palin. Michael, that is...

tolosenc · 18-08-2009 10:50am

JohnMc1 wrote: »

That was in response to Sands comment.

Yeah, and I think he was being sarcastic.

worldrepublic · 18-08-2009 11:54am

All this talk about what McCain would have done if he had been elected is purely speculative and counterfactual. Drop it, and concentrate on Obama's actions, policies and popularity (or lack there of).

Also, the personality of Obama should not detract from the factual debate. I remind you that Bush Jr. was elected on the basis of an idea of personality (friendly down to earth guy you could go for a beer with etc.). Also be aware that public perception (in the initial phases) revolves around a constructed narrative -a cover story. In the case of Bush Jr. "weapons of mass destruction" as the basis for invading Iraq. Similarly, we can expect to see many consume a facile and constructed rationale for Obama's policies (on both foreign and domestic fronts). Denying this element is tantamount to saying "Obama is an exception, special, etc." and that is merely a perpetuation of the cover-story. Obama is a politician, is comparable to other politicians, and uses the standard political tactics.

Of course the cover-story, or constructed image/personality, gradually fades. The point about Obama (based on the polls) is that this has happened exceptionally quickly. He is a radical? Or a suspected radical? The vast majority of people distrust radicals.

It will probably be another year or two in the coming (?) but Michael Moore will make a film attacking Obama (and his 'personality') and will no doubt win another oscar. By then, we will be thinking in terms of the next great offering... yet another constructed political personality.

By the way, Obama has already acquired powerful enemies. Israel, for one (who do you think is engineering the controversy over Obama's eligibility?). The "birther queen" Orly Taitz, has stated, off-handedly, that she has "friends" in Israel, and was even interviewed by MSNBC while she was in Tel Aviv! Like HELLO?

Everybody is being duped and manipulated. No one is innocent. Sorry if this hurts anyone's illusions (on either side).

tlev · 18-08-2009 8:41pm

worldrepublic wrote: »

By the way, Obama has already acquired powerful enemies. Israel, for one (who do you think is engineering the controversy over Obama's eligibility?). The "birther queen" Orly Taitz, has stated, off-handedly, that she has "friends" in Israel, and was even interviewed by MSNBC while she was in Tel Aviv! Like HELLO?

Everybody is being duped and manipulated. No one is innocent. Sorry if this hurts anyone's illusions (on either side).

You are going to blame the Jewish people for the conspiracy theory of Obama's birth? I actually don't know what to say....

As for Sarah Palin, she is a world class fool, she actually did say that her foreign policy experience consisted of Russian planes flying over Alaska...that whole interview with Couric was painful.

Sand · 18-08-2009 8:58pm

Yeah, and I think he was being sarcastic.

Yep - It was apparently a real fear he would keel over and die on the campaign trail. Surely he must be dead by now?

Mind you a 72 year olds life expectancy vs. a black guy running for/serving as President in a country full of heavily armed rednecks?

jank · 19-08-2009 12:06am

Toulousain wrote: »

We obviously don't know what McCain's policy would have been, but given his views about fiscal responsibility, we have an idea.

Like this?
http://www.ny1.com/content/features/86538/senate-passes-economic-rescue-package/Default.aspx
Just looks like the same ol bush v2.0. Not very fiscally responsibile....but says that you are...

Toulousain wrote: »

But tax cuts/breaks is what got Japan, France and Germany leveling out so fast. Obama has upped taxes and crippled the US with debt, he makes Bush look like Warren Buffet.

This is wrong. Germany has reduced some taxes like VAT, but it has also given a huge amount of money as stimulus to the economy as have France.
It's cash for clunkers is very like that of the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7902223.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7764673.stm

$64 Billion and $33 billion each..... ah sure it was all tax cuts that fixed them...;)

What tax has obama upped as of right now!?

Toulousain wrote: »

Not the first time I've had to say this since last summer, but McCain and Bush are two very different people ideologically.

True, but they belong to the same party. The GOP always spout the fiscal responsibility line but never do anything about it.
When was the last GOP president to cut spending?????

Toulousain wrote: »

And Obama's isn't?

Well as far as I am aware he has not "quit" from his elected post early.

Toulousain wrote: »

Do you write for the Huffington Post?

You like my humor?

Toulousain wrote: »

The Gates controversy, flip-flopping over Obamacare, Armenians in Turkey, North Korea... Those were all painful.

Gates was a stupid move alright whatever way you look at is on who was wrong or right. Gates and the cops were both in the wrong in my opinion but Obama had no reason to get involved.
Healthcare is being discussed at the moment and we will not know the final outcome for a few months. At least he has the balls to try and reform it.
North Korea? What did he do wrong here. There is probably alot of work being done behind the scenes trying to engage in the NK regime. This is the best way to solve these problems. Nixon did it with China, Bush with Libya, Obama with North Korea??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8204516.stm

So I am not sure what he did was "painful"!

Toulousain wrote: »

I believe that's a Saturday Night Live quote, no?

Would you be surprised if she said it though. Just look at her resingation speech and try and decipher what the hell she is saying. She will never make it on the national level

Toulousain wrote: »

I'm Canadian. In May of this year, Obama refereed to Stephen Harper as the President of Canada. If he doesn't know even the most simple fact about the political system of the United States' closest neighbor, he's hardly the Foreign Policy/International Relations guru people like you make him out to be.

Maybe he was taking a leaf out of Bush's book, trying to be like the common man?

Toulousain wrote: »

Yes. But never by this much, this early

No, pretty much the same
http://www.pollingreport.com/gallery.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm

Toulousain wrote: »

It's not a claim, but an observation on how he was viewed by the legions of "Yes We Can"-ers that followed his every breath, bite and bowel movement

And what is wrong in getting ordinary people involved in politics? Or is that socialism?:pac:

tolosenc · 19-08-2009 1:07am

jank wrote: »

Like this?

Was that McCain's plan? No? Didn't think so.

This is wrong. Germany has reduced some taxes like VAT, but it has also given a huge amount of money as stimulus to the economy as have France. It's cash for clunkers is very like that of the US.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/7902223.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7764673.stm

$64 Billion and $33 billion each..... ah sure it was all tax cuts that fixed them...;)

If it's just "cash for clunkers", then what we're seeing is dead cat bounce. Artificial, unsustainable demand. I believe France and Germany have provided sufficient tax breaks to merit real recovery.

If you note these bailouts as a % of GDP: France 1.3%, Germany 1.5%, Japan 1.8%, USA ~6%. Notice a discrepancy?

What tax has obama upped as of right now!?

The lapse of the Bush cuts is passive raising of taxes.

True, but they belong to the same party. The GOP always spout the fiscal responsibility line but never do anything about it.
When was the last GOP president to cut spending?????

Last budget surplus was 2001, George W Bush, who had been cutting taxes and spending up until 9/11, then circumstances changed.

Well as far as I am aware he has not "quit" from his elected post early.

She jumped and was not pushed. Quitting is not the only reaction to losing party support. Complete policy U-turns are another.

You like my humor?

Laugh at more so than laugh with. Like the Huffington post. Particularly the article by Arianna Huffington criticisng Fox for being biased. Lol.

Gates was a stupid move alright whatever way you look at is on who was wrong or right. Gates and the cops were both in the wrong in my opinion but Obama had no reason to get involved.

Cops just did their job.

Healthcare is being discussed at the moment and we will not know the final outcome for a few months. At least he has the balls to try and reform it.

Policy U-turn: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

North Korea? What did he do wrong here. There is probably alot of work being done behind the scenes trying to engage in the NK regime. This is the best way to solve these problems. Nixon did it with China, Bush with Libya, Obama with North Korea??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8204516.stm

So I am not sure what he did was "painful"!

Obama said nothing regarding nuclear tests. To be honest, I can't remember what it was, but I do remember that Gordon Brown became the foremost critic. Basically there was a crisis, he did nothing.

Would you be surprised if she said it though.

Yes.

She will never make it on the national level

Just wait. Admittedly, the first dude's Alaskan nationalism mightn't help.

Maybe he was taking a leaf out of Bush's book, trying to be like the common man?

Maybe he's ignorant? Bush new Chrétien's title in '01... Not that hard to get right, is it?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/9245087/Top_10_gaffes_by_Barack_Obama_and_Joe_Biden_/

We're it Bush and Cheney, we'd never hear the end of it.

No, pretty much the same
http://www.pollingreport.com/gallery.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/clinton-.htm
http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm

Those Obama figures are 5-6 months out of date. Clinton's don't show the first 5 years of his presidency. Bush hadn't dropped by this point. Obama's now at 50% according to CNN, btw.

And what is wrong in getting ordinary people involved in politics?

They're not involved in politics. It's celebrity. Mindless groupies.

jank · 19-08-2009 4:59am

Toulousain wrote: »

Was that McCain's plan? No? Didn't think so.

Was it Obama's?

You know the story about the pot and the kettle?

Toulousain wrote: »

If it's just "cash for clunkers", then what we're seeing is dead cat bounce. Artificial, unsustainable demand. I believe France and Germany have provided sufficient tax breaks to merit real recovery.

If you note these bailouts as a % of GDP: France 1.3%, Germany 1.5%, Japan 1.8%, USA ~6%. Notice a discrepancy?

Please elaborate on these cure-all tax cuts.

Toulousain wrote: »

The lapse of the Bush cuts is passive raising of taxes.

linky? Werent they temporary anyway?;)

Toulousain wrote: »

Last budget surplus was 2001, George W Bush, who had been cutting taxes and spending up until 9/11, then circumstances changed.

2001, you mean as Clinton left office! LOL claiming that bush had anything to do with this is laughable. You judge a presidency at the end of the term not at the start. LOL
This tells it own tale?
http://www.scribd.com/doc/3015540/US-Budget-Deficit-or-Surplus-1960present

Anyway what spending did he cut?

Toulousain wrote: »

She jumped and was not pushed. Quitting is not the only reaction to losing party support. Complete policy U-turns are another.

She is still a quitter.

Toulousain wrote: »

Laugh at more so than laugh with. Like the Huffington post. Particularly the article by Arianna Huffington criticisng Fox for being biased. Lol.

Whatever, I dont read the Huffington post so.....

Toulousain wrote: »

Cops just did their job.

In turning up yes, but for arresting him after, hmmm.... If there was a real case why were the charges dropped within hours?

Toulousain wrote: »

Policy U-turn: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul

I am not happy with this, but what can you do. He wants a public option but sure if there is one passed he is a red-blooded communist, then he hints there might be a climb down he is man with no principles. You give an inch they take a ......

Toulousain wrote: »

Obama said nothing regarding nuclear tests. To be honest, I can't remember what it was, but I do remember that Gordon Brown became the foremost critic. Basically there was a crisis, he did nothing.

So whats your point apart from fancy sound bites.

Toulousain wrote: »

Yes.

Well there is one born every minute.

Toulousain wrote: »

Just wait. Admittedly, the first dude's Alaskan nationalism mightn't help.

Ill be waiting a long long time.

Toulousain wrote: »

Maybe he's ignorant? Bush new Chrétien's title in '01... Not that hard to get right, is it?

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyharnden/9245087/Top_10_gaffes_by_Barack_Obama_and_Joe_Biden_/

We're it Bush and Cheney, we'd never hear the end of it.

Pot...Kettle....black
What is it with the "world is against us" attitude?

Toulousain wrote: »

Those Obama figures are 5-6 months out of date. Clinton's don't show the first 5 years of his presidency. Bush hadn't dropped by this point. Obama's now at 50% according to CNN, btw.

Bush was at this point if you look again, Clinton is here,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Clinton_approval_rating.png
His was actually lower than Obama's now which surprises me. Left office very high though.

Bush here again
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:George_W_Bush_approval_ratings.svg
Bush Senior
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bush_I_approval_rating.png

As I said much of a muchness but nothing dramatically different as you claim. All around the 50 percent come the end of summer. Bush GW had the lowest approval ratings ever when he left office so would be throwing stones in glass houses.

When Obama gets to under 30% he should get worried, until then though.

Toulousain wrote: »

They're not involved in politics. It's celebrity. Mindless groupies.

Ah but they are..... you just cant see 21st century politics for what it is yet.

tlev · 19-08-2009 8:06am

The scary thing is that Palin might actually run in 2012...*shudders at the thought. This is for Toulousain, she didn't actually say I can see Russia but she may as well have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg

jank · 19-08-2009 9:03am

LOL, she should have asked her what is her name!

"Oh, I know that one...Sarah Palin...am I right?!!!:pac::D"
Lipstick on a pig indeed.

If she is the GOP's best hope for 2012 then they are finished IMO as a serious party. Ron Paul, Romney, Powell, hell even Mike "creationist" Huckabee is a better bet than she is.

As I said Obama vs Palin no matter what you think of Obama politically they are no match, hell they are not even in the same universe.

Now if McCain picked Libermann, then that would have been interesting but you have to keep the fcuking crazies in the GOP happy!!

worldrepublic · 19-08-2009 12:21pm

you could well see Hilary running for President in 2012.

JohnMc1 · 19-08-2009 1:43pm

Healthcare is being discussed at the moment and we will not know the final outcome for a few months. At least he has the balls to try and reform it.

People wouldn't mind if we were actually having discussions on it. If they would actually bother reading the bill and can tell us point blank what's in it and what isn't, Who is eligible and who isn't [I doubt too many people are willing to have their taxes go up to cover Illegals and the Pot heads in California that want to smoke their brains out] and any actually answer some questions instead of writing people off as "Right wing conspiracy theorists" and disrupters [Wait a minute. Didn't Pelosi say she actually liked disrupters? ] and not talk on a cell phone while people are trying to talk, and not ask citizens to forward peoples emails to the White House, people might actually consider it. Too bad the current adminsitration does not want to drop their pompous arrogant attitude for that to happen.

worldrepublic · 19-08-2009 2:17pm

JohnMc1 wrote: »

People wouldn't mind if we were actually having discussions on it. If they would actually bother reading the bill and can tell us point blank what's in it and what isn't, Who is eligible and who isn't [I doubt too many people are willing to have their taxes go up to cover Illegals and the Pot heads in California that want to smoke their brains out] and any actually answer some questions instead of writing people off as "Right wing conspiracy theorists" and disrupters [Wait a minute. Didn't Pelosi say she actually liked disrupters? ] and not talk on a cell phone while people are trying to talk, and not ask citizens to forward peoples emails to the White House, people might actually consider it. Too bad the current adminsitration does not want to drop their pompous arrogant attitude for that to happen.

Well said!

worldrepublic · 19-08-2009 2:20pm

tlev wrote: »

The scary thing is that Palin might actually run in 2012...*shudders at the thought. This is for Toulousain, she didn't actually say I can see Russia but she may as well have.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg

It hardly matters which of these muppets is put forward, they are all bought and paid for by the super-rich, including Obama. Bush Jnr. could not even tie his own shoelaces and we are supposed to believe that he was running the country. Presidents are just puppets doing what they're told to do by the obscenely rich.

JohnMc1 · 19-08-2009 3:07pm

worldrepublic wrote: »

Well said!

Thanks worldrepublic.

bobbyjoe · 19-08-2009 3:11pm

Obama has being laying out his plan clearly. Its that the opponents just make stuff up and run with it as if it was true. They then end up arguing if there will be Death Panels etc instead of talking about the actual plan. It is not in the interest of the right wing to have a sensible conversation about health care because they are not offering anything to people or have any alternatives.

This is what they are up against.

Woman shouts Heil Hitler at a Jewish guy for supporting a public option.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHsUi2Hu4Ug

Barney Frank puts some dumbass in her place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYlZiWK2Iy8

They should have just done it without consultation and all the town hall crap like Bush used to do.

JohnMc1 · 19-08-2009 3:17pm

bobbyjoe wrote: »

Obama has being laying out his plan clearly. Its that the opponents just make stuff up and run with it as if it was true. They then end up arguing if there will be Death Panels etc instead of talking about the actual plan. It is not in the interest of the right wing to have a sensible conversation about health care because they are not offering anything to people or have any alternatives.

This is what they are up against.

They should have just done it without consultation and all the town hall crap like Bush used to do.

Obama has laid out nothing but buzzwords. Nobody knows whats in the Healthcare bill because none of them want to read it. People have a right to be concerned. If this was Bush or McCain vapid ***** like Maddows and Olbermann would be a field day with saying the Reps are trying to screw the American people again, but since its Obama and the Dems who they suck up too they won't say a word and every concerned citizen is labeled as "Un-American" [despite Pelosi saying during the Bush admin that disrupters or anybody that questions the Govt is a Patriot] or a "Right Wing Conspriacy theorist". The people have a right not to trust the Obama administration. They are completely arrogant and out of touch.

bobbyjoe · 19-08-2009 3:26pm

JohnMc1 wrote: »

Obama has laid out nothing but buzzwords. Nobody knows whats in the Healthcare bill because none of them want to read it. People have a right to be concerned. If this was Bush or McCain vapid ***** like Maddows and Olbermann would be a field day with saying the Reps are trying to screw the American people again, but since its Obama and the Dems who they suck up too they won't say a word and every concerned citizen is labeled as "Un-American" [despite Pelosi saying during the Bush admin that disrupters or anybody that questions the Govt is a Patriot] or a "Right Wing Conspriacy theorist". The people have a right not to trust the Obama administration. They are completely arrogant and out of touch.

Here's a link to the current version of the bill.
http://waysandmeans.house.gov/media/pdf/111/AAHCA09001xml.pdf
Obama has been talking about it since before he was elected. He has been explaining it on tv etc for months.
Do they want him to visit them at home and give powerpoint presentations????

These people don't want to listen.

Here is the woman who shouted Heil Hitler in the previous video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcRr5xA-K80
Her husband has two jobs and no health insurance. She is still fighting against a bill that would help her own husband!! She thinks it will be taken over by Gov and that it will give care to illegals. She has no idea of what in the bill and is out protesting against it!!

Overheal · 19-08-2009 4:07pm

LostinKildare · 19-08-2009 7:28pm

bobbyjoe wrote: »

Here is the woman who shouted Heil Hitler in the previous video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcRr5xA-K80
Her husband has two jobs and no health insurance. She is still fighting against a bill that would help her own husband!! She thinks it will be taken over by Gov and that it will give care to illegals. She has no idea of what in the bill and is out protesting against it!!

Idiot. She acts against her own interests, endangering her own husband's health/life and her family's future by fighting tooth-and-nail against an opportunity to buy affordable coverage for her husband. More than 18,000 Americans die every year because they are uninsured and can't get proper health care. http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/healthcare/2002-05-22-insurance-deaths.htm That's six 9/11s every year, year after year. What does she think will happen if her husband gets a serious illness? If she's lucky they will merely be bankrupted and lose their house.

I note that she says "I believe in biblical values." Would that be the heavily redacted rightwing version of the Bible in which Jesus tells the poor to f*ck off and die?

Where the hell is the U.S. clergy this? They need to shame their flocks into stepping up and doing what Jesus would do.

JohnMc1 · 19-08-2009 8:21pm

The small portion of the US population that is uninsured are that way because they want to. They would rather spend their money HD TVs, PS3s and other ridiculous stuff. Obama's Govt run healthcare plan is not going to change that.

LostinKildare · 19-08-2009 8:51pm

JohnMc1 wrote: »

The small portion of the US population that is uninsured are that way because they want to. They would rather spend their money HD TVs, PS3s and other ridiculous stuff. Obama's Govt run healthcare plan is not going to change that.

Oh c'mon. You deny that the poor and sick exist in order to dodge the moral obligation to help them. That's low.

The hate for Obama

Comments