^^^

Which is exactly what I said

Jesus christ

gibby08 wrote: ^^^

Which is exactly what I said

Jesus christ

This is exactly what you said.

gibby08 wrote: I meant a voter spark...I do think he cares about his Republican congressional counterparts

I was talking about regular voters in the post you dumbass

Voted..... would if could..... Just so I could stand there quietly with a sign of protest!

gibby08 wrote: I was talking about regular voters in the post you dumbass

Refer to my post #22. I used the word average you used regular. It is quite clear what you were saying. Be careful who you call a dumbass.

majorspark wrote: So he cares about the elite political class but pisses on the average voter

I voted for him and I will vote for him again in 2012. If he were coming to Seattle instead of Ohio, I would be there to support him.

I can't believe so many people are down on him for his health care reform. After all, in every campaign speech he made in 2008, he said he was going to push for it. Now that he is elected, he is doing exactly what he said he would do. I give him credit for that.

^^He also said his administration would be one of the most transparent, and "politics as usual" would be no more. Well guess what- all the little tricks, backroom deals, reconciliation tactics, and no-holds-barred cram-it-down-your-throats approach to health care is what's pissing people off the most.

They've made it clear they will stop at NOTHING to get this thing through.

jhay78 wrote: ^^He also said his administration would be one of the most transparent, and "politics as usual" would be no more. Well guess what- all the little tricks, backroom deals, reconciliation tactics, and no-holds-barred cram-it-down-your-throats approach to health care is what's pissing people off the most.

They've made it clear they will stop at NOTHING to get this thing through.

There's no use. Despite Obama lying to the public's face, his supporters still excuse his behavior and make excuses.

He won the election, Congress went overwhelmingly for him, he told us repeatedly throughout the campaign what he thought we needed and how he was going to do it, and now, finally, he is using the political clout that he won in the election to do what he said he would do .If the Conservatives would have won the last election, we would be treated to free market economy adjusting the bad economy back to the good side no matter how long it took, a probable attempt to greatly reduce the role of unions in our country, a return to States rights everywhere, which of course would allow for the reversion back to a time in history which I personally don't ever want to repeat with regard to Civil Rights, Women's Rights, and frankly everybody's rights. I'm sure that de-regulation of everything in sight would also be on the Conservative agenda and the Conservatives would be gleefully sitting back and trampling over the minorities rights. Well, the election didn't turn out that way the last time and a whole lot of people were effected and now they want what was promised and the President is tired of the delaying tactics....i. e. "what we need to do is throw out the entire health care plan and start over from step one..". Of course we do, if comprehensive health care reform comes and many more people are afforded health care who never had it, it will make the Conservatives' job in 2012 even more difficult. It isn't about making our country better that fuels much of the current Conservative agenda, it's about winning power back. It should be a very interesting two years.

Swamp Fox wrote: He won the election, Congress went overwhelmingly for him, he told us repeatedly throughout the campaign what he thought we needed and how he was going to do it, and now, finally, he is using the political clout that he won in the election to do what he said he would do .If the Conservatives would have won the last election, we would be treated to free market economy adjusting the bad economy back to the good side no matter how long it took, a probable attempt to greatly reduce the role of unions in our country, a return to States rights everywhere, which of course would allow for the reversion back to a time in history which I personally don't ever want to repeat with regard to Civil Rights, Women's Rights, and frankly everybody's rights. I'm sure that de-regulation of everything in sight would also be on the Conservative agenda and the Conservatives would be gleefully sitting back and trampling over the minorities rights. Well, the election didn't turn out that way the last time and a whole lot of people were effected and now they want what was promised and the President is tired of the delaying tactics....i. e. "what we need to do is throw out the entire health care plan and start over from step one..". Of course we do, if comprehensive health care reform comes and many more people are afforded health care who never had it, it will make the Conservatives' job in 2012 even more difficult. It isn't about making our country better that fuels much of the current Conservative agenda, it's about winning power back. It should be a very interesting two years.

^^^ This. Well said.

Swamp Fox wrote: He won the election, Congress went overwhelmingly for him, he told us repeatedly throughout the campaign what he thought we needed and how he was going to do it, and now, finally, he is using the political clout that he won in the election to do what he said he would do.

There is some bending of parliamentary rules but for the most part you are correct.

Swamp Fox wrote: If the Conservatives would have won the last election, we would be treated to free market economy adjusting the bad economy back to the good side no matter how long it took

Is there something wrong with the free market? So you are saying Obama and the democrats in power are moving our economy away from the free market.

Swamp Fox wrote: a probable attempt to greatly reduce the role of unions in our country,

What roles? Be specific as to how conservatives have proposed "greatly" reducing the roles of unions. I would have to see these plans in detail before commenting on them. But keep making your broad brush observations.

Swamp Fox wrote: a return to States rights everywhere, which of course would allow for the reversion back to a time in history which I personally don't ever want to repeat with regard to Civil Rights, Women's Rights, and frankly everybody's rights.

Now this statement is utter bullshit. You can't be serious. Conservatives want to enslave blacks, put women in their place, and trample the right of everyone else. You have bought into the scare tactics of the extreme left of the democrat party. This is the kind of stuff right wing nutcakes say like the democrats in congress want to repeal the 22nd amendment and Obama can rule indefinitely.

Swamp Fox wrote: I'm sure that de-regulation of everything in sight would also be on the Conservative agenda and the Conservatives would be gleefully sitting back and trampling over the minorities rights.

Regulation does not always equal good. A government regulation can trample a minorities rights as well. But I know what you mean. Conservative want toxic waste dumped in rivers so evil profit mongers can get rich and sit back and laugh will they sip their wine and brie as little children choke on the smog.

Swamp Fox wrote: Well, the election didn't turn out that way the last time and a whole lot of people were effected and now they want what was promised and the President is tired of the delaying tactics....i. e. "what we need to do is throw out the entire health care plan and start over from step one..". Of course we do, if comprehensive health care reform comes and many more people are afforded health care who never had it, it will make the Conservatives' job in 2012 even more difficult.

Get more people dependent on the federal government always seems to be the answer. Even though the feds have miserably failed our children with social security and medicare. Why would anyone want to trust them with another dime when they have so miserably failed. Bernie Madoff is in jail for the same thing.

Swamp Fox wrote: It isn't about making our country better that fuels much of the current Conservative agenda, it's about winning power back. It should be a very interesting two years.

I heard Obama wants to destroy the free market and make everyone dependent on the government. See I can quote political propaganda too.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote:

Swamp Fox wrote: He won the election, Congress went overwhelmingly for him, he told us repeatedly throughout the campaign what he thought we needed and how he was going to do it, and now, finally, he is using the political clout that he won in the election to do what he said he would do .If the Conservatives would have won the last election, we would be treated to free market economy adjusting the bad economy back to the good side no matter how long it took, a probable attempt to greatly reduce the role of unions in our country, a return to States rights everywhere, which of course would allow for the reversion back to a time in history which I personally don't ever want to repeat with regard to Civil Rights, Women's Rights, and frankly everybody's rights. I'm sure that de-regulation of everything in sight would also be on the Conservative agenda and the Conservatives would be gleefully sitting back and trampling over the minorities rights. Well, the election didn't turn out that way the last time and a whole lot of people were effected and now they want what was promised and the President is tired of the delaying tactics....i. e. "what we need to do is throw out the entire health care plan and start over from step one..". Of course we do, if comprehensive health care reform comes and many more people are afforded health care who never had it, it will make the Conservatives' job in 2012 even more difficult. It isn't about making our country better that fuels much of the current Conservative agenda, it's about winning power back. It should be a very interesting two years.

^^^ This. Well said.

Your response here kind of surprised me. I have read many posts where you complain about the extreme political rhetoric. In fact on some recent threads you were ripping posters on the right for using the terms Marxist and Socialist to describe Obama and the democrats. Yet you praise a poster who insinuates that conservatives want to return the South to the days of segregation and Jim Crow. And as the poster said "gleefully" sit back while the rights of minorities are trample.

You claim to be a centrist that leans left. I would say you lean harder left than you let on. You think the statements in bold are well said. That indicates you personally believe them. Before I had my suspicions. If you stand by those statements about conservatives won't have to suspect anymore.

As I was perusing the results of the poll dealing with the question of whether people would get tickets or try to get tickets, or would not get tickets for Obama's appearance in Strongsville, it struck me that considering the political leanings of a rather large majority of the people who generally post on here, 8-18 is almost an Obama landslide in a national poll. I think the next two years will be fascinating.

majorspark wrote:

Gobuckeyes1 wrote:

Swamp Fox wrote: He won the election, Congress went overwhelmingly for him, he told us repeatedly throughout the campaign what he thought we needed and how he was going to do it, and now, finally, he is using the political clout that he won in the election to do what he said he would do .If the Conservatives would have won the last election, we would be treated to free market economy adjusting the bad economy back to the good side no matter how long it took, a probable attempt to greatly reduce the role of unions in our country, a return to States rights everywhere, which of course would allow for the reversion back to a time in history which I personally don't ever want to repeat with regard to Civil Rights, Women's Rights, and frankly everybody's rights. I'm sure that de-regulation of everything in sight would also be on the Conservative agenda and the Conservatives would be gleefully sitting back and trampling over the minorities rights. Well, the election didn't turn out that way the last time and a whole lot of people were effected and now they want what was promised and the President is tired of the delaying tactics....i. e. "what we need to do is throw out the entire health care plan and start over from step one..". Of course we do, if comprehensive health care reform comes and many more people are afforded health care who never had it, it will make the Conservatives' job in 2012 even more difficult. It isn't about making our country better that fuels much of the current Conservative agenda, it's about winning power back. It should be a very interesting two years.

^^^ This. Well said.

Your response here kind of surprised me. I have read many posts where you complain about the extreme political rhetoric. In fact on some recent threads you were ripping posters on the right for using the terms Marxist and Socialist to describe Obama and the democrats. Yet you praise a poster who insinuates that conservatives want to return the South to the days of segregation and Jim Crow. And as the poster said "gleefully" sit back while the rights of minorities are trample.

You claim to be a centrist that leans left. I would say you lean harder left than you let on. You think the statements in bold are well said. That indicates you personally believe them. Before I had my suspicions. If you stand by those statements about conservatives won't have to suspect anymore.

Didn't know anyone really cared enough about my posts to formulate an opinion of my political views. I'm flattered. You take this place pretty seriously if you have my posts and opinions memorized.

I claim to be a centrist that leans left, because that's what I am. I am certainly not a hard core liberal Dem. You can think whatever you want about me...that won't make it true. I don't know you, and I'm not going to pretend I do because I read a few of your posts on the politics forum.

I agree with the overall concept of the post, which IMO is "to the winners go the spoils". I get tired of hearing about how pissed off everyone is about healthcare reform right now after electing a party and a President who promised to reform health care on the campaign trail. Should President Obama be sitting in the Oval Office thinking "Gosh, I promised health care reform during the campaign and was elected convincingly, but now some polls show that people don't want it, so we might as well forget about it"?
Of course not. I think the point that Swamp Fox was making was that if the Conservatives had all three branches of the government right now, there would be a lot of liberals screaming bloody murder about their agenda, just as the conservatives are doing now with Obama. It has been said many times throughout history...elections have consequences.

The only comment that SwampFox made that I will disagree with is the "gleefully trampling on minority rights" statement...which is a bit much, I will admit on second glance. However, can you deny that most on the far right would welcome more state sovereignty (and everything that comes with it), less powerful unions, free market economy, and deregulation?

And yes, I believe that there is a small faction of the radical conservative movement that would like to see Obama (and by association, our country) fail in the short term in order to regain power and "save the day". To be fair, the same small extreme groups existed on the left when Bush was in office.

So I guess, I don't go along with EVERY SINGLE point that SwampFox made, but I do agree with his basic premise.

gibby08 wrote:

ccrunner609 wrote: Wow that poll is interesting

What the hell is so interesting about it? 95% of the people on this board hate President Obama,so why would this poll suprise ANYONE

Belly35 wrote: Nobody want to see a socialist
Another thing at the Tea Parties we can carry weapons and that makes it special...........because that is what a Free America can do .

So you think it's ok for potentially unstable people(not saying all tea-partiers are unstable,just some) to be able to carry loaded weapons around the President,whom many of them hate??

Mr. 300 wrote: If I could get close enough to tell him what I think of him, yes I'd go. But since that isn't going to happen, I'll pass.

1.You would never get within 10 feet of him

2.Do you honestly think the President give a damn about what someone who didn't vote for him and will never vote for him thinks? I don't think so

It is disturbing if the president doesn't care what people think. Even if they didn't vote for them, he is president of all the US citizens and needs to represent all of them fairly. With this bill, he is not representing the people as the majority do not want THIS PARTICULAR piece of legislation. Healthcare reform is needed, but not with this bill.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: Didn't know anyone really cared enough about my posts to formulate an opinion of my political views. I'm flattered. You take this place pretty seriously if you have my posts and opinions memorized.

Probably about as serious as you do if you post here. If you were honest I think you would admit to formulating a rough political opinion of the regular posters on this forum. And yes I do have a brain that is capable of remembering things I read. Especially when it is only a few days old.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: I claim to be a centrist that leans left, because that's what I am. I am certainly not a hard core liberal Dem. You can think whatever you want about me...that won't make it true. I don't know you, and I'm not going to pretend I do because I read a few of your posts on the politics forum

That is what I recall you saying. Be careful though that lean to the left caused you to gloss over some of Swamp Fox's statements in his post that were utter BS. The kind of political BS that you hate when the far right brings up.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: I agree with the overall concept of the post, which IMO is "to the winners go the spoils". I get tired of hearing about how pissed off everyone is about healthcare reform right now after electing a party and a President who promised to reform health care on the campaign trail. Should President Obama be sitting in the Oval Office thinking "Gosh, I promised health care reform during the campaign and was elected convincingly, but now some polls show that people don't want it, so we might as well forget about it"?
Of course not. I think the point that Swamp Fox was making was that if the Conservatives had all three branches of the government right now, there would be a lot of liberals screaming bloody murder about their agenda, just as the conservatives are doing now with Obama. It has been said many times throughout history...elections have consequences.

If you look at my first response to that aspect of Swamp Fox's post I agreed with it. Power is in Obama and the democrats hands.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: The only comment that SwampFox made that I will disagree with is the "gleefully trampling on minority rights" statement...which is a bit much, I will admit on second glance. However, can you deny that most on the far right would welcome more state sovereignty (and everything that comes with it), less powerful unions, free market economy, and deregulation?

Gleefully trampling on minority rights and also don't forget insinuating more state sovereignty would lead to a return to Jim Crow and segregation. Swamp Fox was quite clear.

As for more state sovereignty I would welcome it. Less powerful unions, free market economy, and deregulation. Nothing is wrong with any of these things. Depends on what is deregulated, how free a market economy is, and how powerful a union is. Nothing wrong with a corporation but one that wields to much power can be a problem. Same goes for unions.

I would welcome a little more balance in the power structure corporations and unions need to deal with.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote: And yes, I believe that there is a small faction of the radical conservative movement that would like to see Obama (and by association, our country) fail in the short term in order to regain power and "save the day". To be fair, the same small extreme groups existed on the left when Bush was in office.

Wanting a president/congress to fail in implementing policies that one may feel will bring harm to the country is fine. Wanting the country to fail so a particular president/congress are discredited is another thing. It is up to individual voters to discern one from the other.

Gobuckeyes1 wrote:

majorspark wrote:

Gobuckeyes1 wrote:

Swamp Fox wrote:

I agree with the overall concept of the post, which IMO is "to the winners go the spoils". I get tired of hearing about how pissed off everyone is about healthcare reform right now after electing a party and a President who promised to reform health care on the campaign trail. Should President Obama be sitting in the Oval Office thinking "Gosh, I promised health care reform during the campaign and was elected convincingly, but now some polls show that people don't want it, so we might as well forget about it"?
Of course not. I think the point that Swamp Fox was making was that if the Conservatives had all three branches of the government right now, there would be a lot of liberals screaming bloody murder about their agenda, just as the conservatives are doing now with Obama. It has been said many times throughout history...elections have consequences.

After Scott Brown won the Mass. special election in January, Dems knew they couldn't pass healthcare the normal way, so they've resorted to reconciliation tricks and parliamentary games to get it through.

Winning the election in '08 was not a ticket to cram any and every bill through that they please- they are still accountable to represent the people. And if "elections have consequences", so do heavy-handed government tactics aimed at taking over a large part (1/6th) of our economy.

I'll agree with one part- if you voted for Obama and you're pissed about healthcare, shame on you for not knowing who this guy was and what his agenda was really all about.

believer wrote:

Gobuckeyes1 wrote:This board is owned by Justin. It is technically not a public forum, so complete freedom of speech does not necessarily apply here.

True but I do not understand why topics posted on the political forum need blessed, sprinkled with holy water, and pasteurized before they "go live". Meanwhile just about ANYTHING goes on all the other forums.

It is indeed Justin's site and I appreciate his wisdom in giving us an alternative to that other joke of a web site. Still it seems odd that political posts are initially scrutinized when the F-Bomb, T&A, douche bag, and other stupidity can be posted unimpeded on the other forums.

At least the political forum attracts a better class of "serious business" scum!

While I appreciate your humor, JI is just following what JJ did with any political topics.

For some reason a topic about taking a dump, or someone getting killed, or someone arrested, homosexuality, sexual tools, etc..... is allowed (unreviewed).

Something about Obama needs to be approved.

Obama's Health Care 'Victim' Exposed
Natoma Canfield is 50 years old. She was diagnosed with cancer 16 years ago. She quit her job or was laid off 12 years ago. She has reportedly held odd jobs cleaning homes the last few years. Natoma was paying $5,000 a year for her insurance but dropped it after it went up to $8,000. She wrote president Obama in December to tell him about it.

She was worried she might lose her home. Some people might say she’s lucky to still have a home after losing her job 12 years ago. Barack Obama came to Ohio today to prop Natoma up on stage with him.

But, Natoma Canfield couldn’t make it. She is back in the hospital. (Our prayers for a quick recovery) She is getting cared for despite the fact that she has no insurance. She’s not out on the street. She’s not a statistic like Rep Alan Grayson would have you believe. Natoma is getting the care she needs. Her sister met with Barack Obama instead. (She is reportedly in the Cleveland Clinic).


It was a bad day for Obama’s health care props.

UPDATE: Barack Obama talked about Natoma’s mortgage today… Natoma is living in a house her parents built. Something isn’t adding up.

UPDATE: Major Kong added this: Canfield, who had breast cancer 16 years ago…” Lets see, if my rudimentary math skills don’t fail me, that would mean she was diagnosed at age 34. How fortunate for her that the current American Cancer Society recommendations for regular mammographies only after age 50 weren’t in effect then. She’d probably be a dead woman today if Obamacare had been in effect then.

http://www.thefoxnation.com/abc-health-care/2010/03/15/obamas-health-care-victim-exposed

"How many people are getting insurance through their jobs right now?

Raise your hands.

All right. Well, a lot of those folks, your employer it's estimated would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent, which means they could give you a raise."

I'm just amazed that Congress and Obama have figured out a way to get the insurance companies to pay us exorbitant sums of money to keep their insurance. Can I buy 10 policies? I could retire early and someone else could have my job. We can totally fix unemployment, too!!