punked Posted January 8, 2010 Report Posted January 8, 2010 And by your definition, he's also a huge liar. Of course, you're preaching to the choir, I already knew that. Little like this one Shady? "There are 43 million uninsured Americans – 4 million more than when the current administration took office. George W. Bush will reverse this trend by making health insurance affordable for hard-working, low-income families." [source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website] Hmmmmmmmmmmmm..................I remember someone who loved himself a liar for the past 9 years. It was you. Quote
Oleg Bach Posted January 8, 2010 Report Posted January 8, 2010 No he will not be put to the fire on this one. AMERICA will realize that beating up on a child - the boy king Obama is not really fair...sure they are let down by him..still it's better than that raging Dick Cheney constantly showing everyone that he is tougher and meaner than anyone on the planet..Obamas approach needs to be refined a bit. Quote
BubberMiley Posted January 8, 2010 Report Posted January 8, 2010 It was a spit-shine, I understand. Shady will like this: http://postworthy.com/contributorimages/PalinShine.jpg Quote "I think it's fun watching the waldick get all excited/knickers in a knot over something." -scribblet
Oleg Bach Posted January 8, 2010 Report Posted January 8, 2010 So what! Obama is just a little man..so was Bush..pointing figures at this fact is not helpful...when you can do better let me know. Quote
punked Posted January 8, 2010 Report Posted January 8, 2010 So what! Obama is just a little man..so was Bush..pointing figures at this fact is not helpful...when you can do better let me know. This was a better option right? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/07/steve-schmidt-palin-debat_n_415391.html Quote
Moonlight Graham Posted January 8, 2010 Report Posted January 8, 2010 How do you figure? I'd say if anything, Obama's a lot dumber than Cheney. Everything Obama criticized Bush and Cheney for during his campaign, he's done a 180 on. Obama got elected didn't he? As for Cheney, in many ways he's very intelligent, in others he's a complete moron, and overall he lives up to his first name. Quote "All generalizations are false, including this one." - Mark Twain Partisanship is a disease of the intellect.
Born Free Posted January 8, 2010 Report Posted January 8, 2010 Obama got elected didn't he? As for Cheney, in many ways he's very intelligent, in others he's a complete moron, and overall he lives up to his first name. He's not a moron...far from it....he's just a very dangerous liar who would toss out the US constitution as he sees fit. He should never again be allowed to get near the White House. "He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war.' -- Cheney Quote
Shady Posted January 8, 2010 Report Posted January 8, 2010 Obama got elected didn't he? So what? So did Bush and Cheney, for two terms in office. He's not a moron...far from it....he's just a very dangerous liar who would toss out the US constitution as he sees fit. He should never again be allowed to get near the White House. If anyone's tearing up the constitution, it's Barack Hussein Obama. "He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war.' -- Cheney What exactly is unconstitutional about not giving terrorists/enemy combatants lawyers and access to the domestic judicial system? Quote
Born Free Posted January 8, 2010 Report Posted January 8, 2010 So what? So did Bush and Cheney, for two terms in office. If anyone's tearing up the constitution, it's Barack Hussein Obama. Example please... Quote
Born Free Posted January 8, 2010 Report Posted January 8, 2010 What exactly is unconstitutional about not giving terrorists/enemy combatants lawyers and access to the domestic judicial system? Take a guess... Quote
Shady Posted January 8, 2010 Report Posted January 8, 2010 Take a guess... I have no idea. I've read through the American constitution, and I don't see anything that provides prisoners of war and/or enemy combatants with lawyers and access to the domestic judicial system. Please enlighten us. Quote
Bugs Posted January 8, 2010 Author Report Posted January 8, 2010 (edited) Pretty close on that one..but it might be a near miss conceptually. Cheney might be the God Father of oil but someone else is holding the bag of cash...and who that person is will never be known. Asking an informed man if Bush and Cheney were responsible for economic troubles, he said no. It's not upper top dog management that is the problem..it's middle upper management..the upstarts who still gage everything with the number of dollars in hand. Cheney like my former friend...if you can call him that are not about money..they are about management..They do not lust for status or cash like us mere mortals...the other problem Obama has is his own affirmative action show case...He has hired to many black people that are not competent. He should have tossed in a few token whites and I don't mean Hillary...as for Cheney...He has the street fighters mind...and he does not posture..he destroys you from behind with a bar stool. I can understand why politicians fight over who will be blamed for a particularly disasterous decision, but I, personally, don't come on here to get into a bunfight with supporters of particular parties, particularly those who think their party has never erred. I thought that we'd have a discussion of how Obama's political capital is being spent. It's one thing to say whether it's been well spent or not, and another about whether his political force is being diminished. This is American politics ... surely we can be more objective about it that we can about our own? Locating guilt is not the issue. I think Obama made the wrong choice when he took of Gleithner and Summers et. al. It would have been better to let the bankers take the burn, and to protect the wealth of the American people. Without a doubt, that would have caused two years of turmoil, but also, without a doubt, the American economy would have come out of it stronger than they will be. Or so I think. Others may have a different judgement. But how was Obama going to do anything different? The New Deal is the folkloric tradition of the current Democratic Party. The pillars of that party were formed in the last Depression. They instinctively use government to protect people. (The only difference is where they once used to tax the rich to feed the poor, now they tax the people and feed the banks.) And what could be more romantic than another New Deal, this time with a black President? It might have been worse for him now, if he'd gone the way I think he should have gone. Can we lay aside the issue of blame? In any case, he is losing political support very quickly. Independents -- who largely supported Obama -- have become Tea Party protesters. Conservatives want to tear RINOs (Republicans In Name Only) apart. Sarah Palin draws huge crowds everywhere she goes. They're a long way from having a candidate, but the energy is moving to that end of the spectrum. With Obama, what was once enchanting is becoming irritating and repetitious. Heavy-weight Democrats like Chris Dodd and Durgen are throwing in the towel, after waiting 15 years to get the double majority and the Presidency ... and then, only a two year break before that it was Reagan-Bush. These guys have come in from the wilderness for a second brief respite. Normally, they enjoy so much seniority that they are in very sweet spots in the Senate. It would normally be a time for them to reap what they have sown. Instead, they are quitting -- it must be because they don't want to be humiliated at the polls. It suggests that Obama's coattails are turning negative. Like Bush's. We can watch and see if candidates want to book Obama during the campaign. If they don't, it means that Obama is wounded. All this coming year is going to be a test of the Obama team's policy decisions. They've popped the corks on Wall Street, but in real life, a jobless recovery isn't a recovery at all. If the jobs don't start coming back, increasing monthly, what will they do? Put it on a time line. Right now, we are getting December job numbers. It's Christmas. It isn't decisive. But in mid-February, we'll have a genuine measure, and by mid-March, a trend line emerging ... I would say if they don't have positive job growth going by then, it's going to start to get ugly for Mr. Obama. Of course, they will throw money at the problem. But they have to be creating 300,000 jobs a month by September for it to do them any good. Do you see that happening? Comments? Edited January 8, 2010 by Bugs Quote
Sir Bandelot Posted January 8, 2010 Report Posted January 8, 2010 (edited) With Obama, what was once enchanting is becoming irritating and repetitious. Heavy-weight Democrats like Chris Dodd and Durgen are throwing in the towel, after waiting 15 years to get the double majority and the Presidency ... and then, only a two year break before that it was Reagan-Bush. These guys have come in from the wilderness for a second brief respite. Normally, they enjoy so much seniority that they are in very sweet spots in the Senate. It would normally be a time for them to reap what they have sown. Instead, they are quitting -- it must be because they don't want to be humiliated at the polls. Maybe they are fed up with Obama genuflecting before the Republican party. Way I see it he's kissing so much ass, time for a wipe. The feel-good speech thing only works up to a point, then people want to see results. And what they're seeing so far is empty promises, or that his words are so carefully couched in ambiguous meaning that he actually never promised to do anything, really, just that he made it sound that way in his speech. The disillusioned public is coming to learn that a smiling liar is still, just a liar. Case in point with Guantanamo, Afghanistan, and universal health care. When Bush said he was going to do something, it got done. Bush had no remorse over things like partisanship. What mattered to him was taking decisive action. Like it or not, he was "the decider". Obama on the other hand... Edited January 8, 2010 by Sir Bandelot Quote
Pliny Posted January 9, 2010 Report Posted January 9, 2010 When did they reform health care again Shady? I blinked and I missed the Bush Cheney Health Care reform plan. Under the Bush administration they expanded medicaid which made it more inclusive. Medicaid is their government health insurance for the poor. Because It wasn't an act to institute universal health care you probably missed it. Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
Shady Posted January 9, 2010 Report Posted January 9, 2010 Economist Was Under Contract With HHS While Touting Health Reform Bill MIT economist Jonathan Gruber, one of the leading academic defenders of health care reform, is taking heat for failing to disclose consistently that he was under contract with the Department of Health and Human Services while he was touting the Democrats' health proposals the media. Link Looks like more Obama 'Hope n Change' for us. This goes right along with his campaign insistance the healthcare reform be broadcast on CSPAN for all Americans to see. Can anyone believe one word that comes outta this guys mouth? Seriously? Remember his promise about legislation being posted online for 72 hours before a vote so that everyone could read what's in proposed bills? Or when he said that he'd have no lobbyists working for his Administration? Or when he said he would tax people's healthcare insurance plans? Quote
Born Free Posted January 9, 2010 Report Posted January 9, 2010 I have no idea. I've read through the American constitution, and I don't see anything that provides prisoners of war and/or enemy combatants with lawyers and access to the domestic judicial system. Please enlighten us. First, he wasnt a prisoner of war or an enemy combatant. Just like the Millenium bomber, the shoe bomber, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and now the underpants bomber... they all have access to lawyers and the legal system... Quote
Born Free Posted January 9, 2010 Report Posted January 9, 2010 (edited) If anyone's tearing up the constitution, it's Barack Hussein Obama. Care to respond/elaborate on your assertion....? Edited January 9, 2010 by Born Free Quote
punked Posted January 9, 2010 Report Posted January 9, 2010 Under the Bush administration they expanded medicaid which made it more inclusive. Medicaid is their government health insurance for the poor. Because It wasn't an act to institute universal health care you probably missed it. "There are 43 million uninsured Americans – 4 million more than when the current administration took office. George W. Bush will reverse this trend by making health insurance affordable for hard-working, low-income families." [source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website] I missed them insuring more Americans and revering the trend of having them grow? Hmmmmmm must of only happened in Pliny world. Ohhh and did miss them expanding Medicade because BUSH TOLD THE STATES THEY COULDN'T! http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/washington/04health.html Quite rewriting History Pliny your guy was a big fat liar. Quote
Shady Posted January 9, 2010 Report Posted January 9, 2010 First, he wasnt a prisoner of war or an enemy combatant. Just like the Millenium bomber, the shoe bomber, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and now the underpants bomber... they all have access to lawyers and the legal system... Yes, he wasn't a prisoner of war but he can be classified as an enemy combatant as a foreign-born terrorist. And nowhere under the constitution does it give enemy combatants/foreign-born terrorists a right to an attorney. Just because they have been given access to the legal system, doens't mean they're guaranteed so by the constitution. Read it for yourself and you'll see. Care to respond/elaborate on your assertion....? Yes, by providing constitutional rights to terrorists not protected by the constitution. Also, his healthcare provision that forces people to buy a service from the private sector, or be fined or jailed. Nowhere in the constitution does it allow the federal government to force you to buy anything from anyone, and fine or jail you if you don't comply. Extremely unconstitutional. He may as well have torn up the constitution on the steps of the White House with that one. Quote
sharkman Posted January 9, 2010 Report Posted January 9, 2010 Obama needs a Cheney.....somebody to play bad cop. Even Biden craps in his pants when Cheney walks in....he is The Godfather of Oil. Sorry to drag this quote from page 1, but LOL! That was classic, nice one BC. Quote
Born Free Posted January 9, 2010 Report Posted January 9, 2010 Yes, he wasn't a prisoner of war but he can be classified as an enemy combatant as a foreign-born terrorist. If the Queen had balls she would be King. And nowhere under the constitution does it give enemy combatants/foreign-born terrorists a right to an attorney. Just because they have been given access to the legal system, doens't mean they're guaranteed so by the constitution. Read it for yourself and you'll see. I'm gonna save us a lot of time and suggest to you that if those guys I cited were able to be classified as such that their constitutional rights could be taken away, that would have been done. Especially in the days of the Cheney White House. Oh, I forgot to mention.... McVeigh and his buddy were non-combatent terrorists and dont forget the creep at Ft Hood is likely a subversive terrorist....and they all appear to have been given the same rights as any accused person does. Now mind you there are elements in your government today on both sides of the house that would like to bastardize the constitution and remove those rights so that when and if the guy in charge sees fit to do so....he/she will happily do it and Voila!..no lawyer and no trial ....ever....the perp simply dissappears into the night... Seriously, I find it abhorrent when an idiot politicial bleats into the TV camera stuff like ..."We're at War damn it!!! We cant give these people any rights!" Quote
bush_cheney2004 Posted January 9, 2010 Report Posted January 9, 2010 ...Seriously, I find it abhorrent when an idiot politicial bleats into the TV camera stuff like ..."We're at War damn it!!! We cant give these people any rights!" Why? Either they have rights or they don't. Quote Economics trumps Virtue.
Born Free Posted January 10, 2010 Report Posted January 10, 2010 Why? Either they have rights or they don't. ...what can I say.....? Neither our poster Shadey or Dick Cheney feel that they should have any legal rights. That crap kinda flies in the face of what we all claim we are...a democracy... This war on terror is a euphemism in the same sense as the war on poverty and the war on drugs. Unfortunately, folks like Cheney believe it to mean that they would grant themselves the power to personally decide what someone's rights are or arent....so to speak... Former VP Cheney always was and still is a very scary guy and should never ever be allowed to be put in that kind of position of power again. This is classic stuff from a guy at the top of a regime that should never have existed in the first place. "He seems to think if he gives terrorists the rights of Americans, lets them lawyer up and reads them their Miranda rights, we won't be at war.' -- Cheney Quote
Pliny Posted January 10, 2010 Report Posted January 10, 2010 (edited) "There are 43 million uninsured Americans – 4 million more than when the current administration took office. George W. Bush will reverse this trend by making health insurance affordable for hard-working, low-income families." [source: Bush-Cheney 2000 website] I missed them insuring more Americans and revering the trend of having them grow? Hmmmmmm must of only happened in Pliny world. Ohhh and did miss them expanding Medicade because BUSH TOLD THE STATES THEY COULDN'T! http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/04/washington/04health.html Quite rewriting History Pliny your guy was a big fat liar. Medicaid did expand under Bush. The Dems wanted to expand it further in 2008. Bush was against further expansion. According to Census Bureau figures, the number of Americans covered by public health insurance grew to 27.8 per- cent of the population in 2007, counter- balancing declines in private coverage. The number of Americans receiving health insurance from public sources has in- creased by 14 million since the year 2000, even as private coverage has dropped. The majority of coverage growth is due to expansions in the Medicaid and the State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Edited January 10, 2010 by Pliny Quote I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.
punked Posted January 10, 2010 Report Posted January 10, 2010 Medicaid did expand under Bush. The Dems wanted to expand it further in 2008. Bush was against further expansion. In 2008 Bush wanted to cut 40 billion from Medicaid. What planet do you live on again? You don't get to rewrite history. \ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11237564/ Just because more people become poor under Bush and thus were allowed to file for Medicaid that doesn't mean he expanded it BTW. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.