It's time for Obama to GO

[WinePusher]

I believe Obama is probably the most radical president in our nation's history, aside from Woodrow Wilson. Not only is his policy questionable, but his character and personal actions are troubling

-Why did this president bow to ver 5 world leaders
-Why did this president spend over 20 years at a church where the pastor spwed hate speech about America
-Why did this president place a communist and a mao se tung lover in his white house

many republicans have called this president a "Marxist" "Neocommunist" "Facist" "Socialist" "Extremist" I personally agree with every single one of these, but many call this hate speech

So the question is

1) Are the statements aganist Obama (ie: Marxist, Socialist) justifiable"

2) Can anyone justify the government take over of the banks, auto industry, student loan industry and the healthcare industry.

3) Is the media giving obama a free pass? Any rational person would agree the media was very hard on Palin but not so hard on Obama

[East of Eden]

There is also a reason why the citizens from these countries come to America to get healthcare. Why did the Canadian government offical come to florida to get surgical treatment?

Why did Sarah Palin's family go to Canada to get health care when she was a child?


As for a poll..
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/ ... 5027.shtml

Can you provide a poll that says that the majority of americans favored the public option

Opps..url

From .http://www.healthcare-now.org/another-p ... gle-payer/

A New York Times/CBS News poll released last week shows, yet again, that the majority of Americans support national health insurance.

The poll, which compares answers to the same questions from 30 years ago, finds that, “59% [of Americans] say the government should provide national health insurance, including 49% who say such insurance should cover all medical problems.�

Only 32% think that insurance should be left to private enterprise.

and then from http://www.indyweek.com/citizen/archive ... payer-idea

Elon Poll: N.C. voters are pro-public option; half like single-payer idea
Posted by Bob Geary on Fri, Mar 19, 2010 at 2:10 PM
click to enlarge unknown.jpg

(Update: But the Ghost of Public Option still inhabits the land.)

Even in a swing/conservative state currently under bombardment by anti-health care reform ads from the Americans for Prosperity bunch, the Elon Poll finds broad support among North Carolinians for 1) reform of some kind; 2) reform that goes farther than what's on the table in Washington; 3) a public option insurance plan as part of the current reform package, and 4) a single-payer system of health care, i.e., one run by or at least paid for by the federal government. You mean, the Tea Party crowd isn't a vast majority?

Weirdly, at least to me, the results of this poll were sent to the media by the Democratic National Committee (as well as by Elon).

I say weird because the poll indicates that only about 39 percent of N.C. voters back reform along the lines of the Obama-Congressional plan due for a vote in the House on Sunday. But our voters would get behind adding a public option to the plan by a 53-37 percent majority.

Too bad, because with President Obama's blessing, congressional Democrats dropped the public option, a big reason IMHO why their plan isn't very popular.

Earlier, of course, the President backed the public option -- or said he did -- in preference to a single-payer plan that many Democrats would favor but he, Obama, and such alleged Democrats as Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln, didn't.

And, btw, how would N.C. feel about single-payer? Pretty good, apparently. Elon's respondents split 47-47, with the rest having no opinion, on the question: Would you [support or oppose] a national insurance plan paid for by the federal government that pays most medical and hospital costs for all citizens?

On such a supposed hot-button question, I think you could fairly add the "no opinions" to the supporters as a gauge to public acceptance of the single-payer concept. So, bottom line, 53 percent would be OK with either a government-run health care system or, failing that, a system that includes a government-run option in the mix with private insurance products.

That's 53 percent in North Carolina, folks. We're not talking Vermont here.

Well, it wasn't just blanche lincoln, Ben Nelson and Lieberman. It was also about 30 dems in the House.

The only bipartisan aspect of Obamacare was the opposition to it. It would have been nice if we had had a dialogue instead of a monologue.

[aarons914]

The only bipartisan aspect of Obamacare was the opposition to it. It would have been nice if we had had a dialogue instead of a monologue.

The Republicans chose very early on to try and kill healthcare instead of work on a bi-partisan bill (waterloo anyone?). Inferring it was the Dems fault for that isn't very honest.

[MagusYanam]

The only bipartisan aspect of Obamacare was the opposition to it. It would have been nice if we had had a dialogue instead of a monologue.

The Republicans chose very early on to try and kill healthcare instead of work on a bi-partisan bill (waterloo anyone?). Inferring it was the Dems fault for that isn't very honest.

Interesting thought-experiment here:

http://crookedtimber.org/2010/03/29/partisanbipartisan/

The Republicans actually are far more partisan and ideological in their structure and platform than the Democrats are, which is generally why every initiative the Democrats undertake seems partisan in consequence (because of both the highly partisan opposition of the Republicans plus the opposition of some dissenting Democrats).

[East of Eden]

The only bipartisan aspect of Obamacare was the opposition to it. It would have been nice if we had had a dialogue instead of a monologue.

The Republicans chose very early on to try and kill healthcare instead of work on a bi-partisan bill (waterloo anyone?). Inferring it was the Dems fault for that isn't very honest.

No, they tried to change the parts of Obama's bill they disagreed with. Were Democrats who voted against it being partisan?

The Democrats opposed about everything Bush wanted to do, including supporting the troops during wartime. They actually chose to undermine the war effort while our troops were dying.

[McCulloch]

The Democrats opposed about everything Bush wanted to do, including supporting the troops during wartime. They actually chose to undermine the war effort while our troops were dying.

That all depends on your point of view. I see the Democrats opposition to the War in Iraq as support for the troops. They did not want to see the troops dying for Bush's and Cheney's grab at controlling the oil resources.

[East of Eden]

That all depends on your point of view. I see the Democrats opposition to the War in Iraq as support for the troops. They did not want to see the troops dying for Bush's and Cheney's grab at controlling the oil resources.

Saying we're going to lose and trying to cut off funding is supporting the troops? Democrats have a long tradition of this going back to Vietnam, which was lost because the Democrats reneged on US pledges of support to South Viet Nam, and even cut off humanitarian aid. Without this treachery South Vietnam probably would have survived until the end of the Cold War.

If Iraq was all about oil wouldn't it have been easier to attack Venezuela?

[WinePusher]

The Democrats opposed about everything Bush wanted to do, including supporting the troops during wartime. They actually chose to undermine the war effort while our troops were dying.

That all depends on your point of view. I see the Democrats opposition to the War in Iraq as support for the troops. They did not want to see the troops dying for Bush's and Cheney's grab at controlling the oil resources.

Well, to say that the war in Iraq was a grab for oil is like saying Obama isn't a true american citizen. Both statements are obviously false and driven by conspiracy theories......Unless you can give me some reliable objective sources that claim Bush and Cheney's goal was to control the crude oil wells in Iraq.

I don't see how democrats voting to de fund the war in Iraq is actually supporting our troops. We've heard people like Harry Reid and Pelosi call the war a "lost cause." Its a typical democratic talking point and it only demoralizes the troops.

[WinePusher]

The only bipartisan aspect of Obamacare was the opposition to it. It would have been nice if we had had a dialogue instead of a monologue.

The Republicans chose very early on to try and kill healthcare instead of work on a bi-partisan bill (waterloo anyone?). Inferring it was the Dems fault for that isn't very honest.

Um....didn't obama have a filibuster proof majority in the senate and a super majority in the house. Was it the republicans who kept delaying and blocking the bill, or was it the moderate democrats? Considering the corrupt process, buying out Louisiana, Nebraska, special deals for Connecticut and Florida, back room deals with the pharmacuteical companies and so forth, I'm glad the republican opposed this.

Please tell me why Obama chose to have the healthcare summit only after Scott Brown was elected? Why not at the beginning. Is it because Obama never sought republican support until he realized that they could actually block it? Was it right for Pelosi to even propose something as crude as the slaughter intiative on a bill of this magnitude, or for Harry Reid to propose reconciliation?

[Metatron]

The Democrats opposed about everything Bush wanted to do, including supporting the troops during wartime. They actually chose to undermine the war effort while our troops were dying.

That all depends on your point of view. I see the Democrats opposition to the War in Iraq as support for the troops. They did not want to see the troops dying for Bush's and Cheney's grab at controlling the oil resources.

Okay, much as we frequently ask theists to provide evidence to back there religious claims, I'd like you to provide evidence that the U.S. invaded Iraq for the purpose of "controlling the oil resources".

Personally, I'm not sure how attempting to stand Iraq up as a functioning democracy with it's own army qualifies as a plan for controlling their oil resources.

[sickles]

I believe Obama is probably the most radical president in our nation's history, aside from Woodrow Wilson. Not only is his policy questionable, but his character and personal actions are troubling

-Why did this president bow to ver 5 world leaders

because it is respectful in those cultures to do so. Equals usually bow to one another at the same depth. If one bowed noticably lower than the other, that is a sign of defference. diplomacy isnt a penis measuring contest. stupid macho americans ( im american and i can throw stones in my own glass house, thank you)

-Why did this president spend over 20 years at a church where the pastor spwed hate speech about America

what hate speech? jeremiah was accurate from his point of view from what i have hear him speak of.

-Why did this president place a communist and a mao se tung lover in his white house

what? we hate communists still? why dont we still hate catholics like in JFKs time?

many republicans have called this president a "Marxist" "Neocommunist" "Facist" "Socialist" "Extremist" I personally agree with every single one of these, but many call this hate speech

we are already socialist. If your definition of socialism is a government that puts even one socialized policy in place. Fire protection from fire fighters are socialized, police are socialized, school is socialized, the VA is socialized, libraries are socialized, welfare is socialized, road work is socialized. It's hate speech because it is a practice that has been in place for along time , and it just now conveniently is coming out when we have a black president . where were you when bush was president? were you holding your protest sign then? you are in danger of seeming hypocritical.

So the question is

1) Are the statements aganist Obama (ie: Marxist, Socialist) justifiable"

depends on your definition of those terms. everyone is a little socialist, a litle marxist, a little democratic, its just a spectrum.

2) Can anyone justify the government take over of the banks, auto industry, student loan industry and the healthcare industry.

yup. to stop individuals from taking advantage of weaknesses do to a lack of forsight when regulatory measures were put into place. If the governement takes the reigns, it is more likely that everyone involved will be treated the same. The goal no longer is "make money" the goal is to "serve the purpose". i dont know what purpose the auto industry served. its just a manufacturer, and it should have gone down from bad management like any business should have, and the out of work masses should have formed a lynch mob and made those CEO's money worthless to them.

and as a person who hasnt had as many opportunities in life, having been raised in alabama in a 2 bedroom shack, living on welfare, buying clothes from the thrift store, depending on a walmart charity program for christmas, and a church i didnt believe in for a meal on thanksgiving, all while my dad drove a truck over the road for 6 days a week, i can say that you as a taxpayer seem selfish and apathetic to the plights of others.

3) Is the media giving obama a free pass? Any rational person would agree the media was very hard on Palin but not so hard on Obama

all media is biased. The only time a media outlet deviates from its bias is when there is public outrage on an issue, and not addressing that issue would create backlash for the media outlet. The common media outlets are business owned by one or two people, and they want a specific audience for each media outlet so they can sell advertising specifically tailored to those audiences. Watch commercials during Fox news breaks, then watch the ones for ABC, and CNN. they are tailored to the audience that the outlet is trying to attract with its particular spin.

In Palins case, outrage that an uneducated , ill informed, and self righteous woman might be vice president caused the media to be critical. Probably the first public critisism of Palin came from Saturday Night Live from Tina Fey, and they got huge responses. The media outlets were forced to follow suit or seem counter to thier viewers desires. Except fox.