And Obama Was Supposed To Be Better Than Hillary?
Winston Smith, American Patriot
Second Coming: I TOLD YOU SO!!
Obamaniacs were calling Hillary Bush's brother and worse. Hillary was
supposedly really a Republican...no representative of "hope" and
"change." What else did they say about Hillary?
Countdown with Keith Olbermann, which I watch faithfully and, with the
Maddow show, is probably a good thermometer to measure the fever of
the very far left (Obama's base), has basically shown Obama to be a
liar on how he campaigned on health care reform and how he has now
basically sold out
The Senate's bill delivers millions of new customers, under penalty of
law to the customers, to SAME RIP-OFF insurance companies. If you
thought the oligopolies were making too much money NOW, guess how much
they will make IN THE FUTURE!!! Oh, and yes, the insurance companies
WILL drop customers who are a drag on their profits...and they will do
it on the cost side, not on the revenue side. The Senate version
probably won't even get past the Supreme Court anyway (and it
shouldn't).
The House bill with the Stupak amendment stripped is the best chance
for "hope" and "change" and real health care reform.
Even with both bills, there are enough loopholes which will not reduce
profits to companies and the premium payouts of Joe The Regular Guy,
which will likely go up another 200% by the time Obama runs for re-
election.
======
As Health Bill Advances, Few Changes Seen for Millions
Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
By REED ABELSON
Published: December 24, 2009
Now that the Senate has caught up with the House by passing a sweeping
health care bill, lawmakers are on the verge of extending coverage to
the tens of millions of Americans who have no health insurance.
But what about the roughly 160 million workers and their dependents
who already have health insurance through an employer? For many
people, the result of the long, angry health care debate in Washington
may be little more than more of the same.
As President Obama once promised, “If you like your health plan, you
can keep your health plan.”
That may be true even if you don’t like your health plan. And no one
seems to agree on whether the legislation will do much to reduce
workers’ continually rising out-of-pocket costs.
True, there is an important advantage for the working insured: more
peace of mind for people who are worried about being laid off or would
like to change jobs.
There are still many gaps to bridge between the House and Senate
bills. But even before the House-Senate negotiations begin in January,
both bills offer this assurance: If you lose your job or move to one
that does not provide benefits, there should be better alternatives
when shopping for your own coverage.
And both the House and Senate bills share the same basic goal of
placing new rules on insurers so that even someone with a pre-existing
medical condition, or a few years to go before qualifying for
Medicare, should have a much easier time finding a relatively
affordable policy.
The legislation should give most working people “the guarantee of
security if their circumstances change,” said Karen Davis, the
president of the Commonwealth Fund, an independent research group that
has studied the House and Senate bills.
Of course, with more security will come more obligation. Congress
seems likely to impose an individual mandate that will require people
to be insured or face a financial penalty.
The other proposed changes for employer-provided coverage seem aimed
mainly at workers whose benefits are either very generous or
exceedingly skimpy.
On the generous end, about a fifth of employers now offer health plans
that could be affected by a new 40 percent excise tax in the Senate
bill on so-called Cadillac policies, according to an estimate by
Mercer, a benefits consulting firm. That tax, to be imposed on annual
premiums that exceeded $23,000 for family coverage, would go into
effect in 2013. For example, if an insurer, or a self-insured
employer, offers a plan costing $25,000, it must pay a 40 percent tax
on the $2,000 that is above the threshold, or $800.
If the excise tax survives the House-Senate negotiations, it is hard
to predict how employers will respond. But almost two-thirds of the
employers Mercer recently surveyed said they were likely to reduce
employee benefits rather than pay the tax.
“They’re going to work hard to find a way to keep the cost of their
plans below the threshold,” said Beth Umland, Mercer’s director of
health and benefits research.
She predicts that many of those companies will rely on what she
described as “the tried-and-true method” — passing along more of the
costs to employees, in the form of higher deductibles and co-payments,
in order to reduce overall premiums.
The public policy goal of the tax, in theory, is to have everyone
spend less on medical care, even if it means using it less.
“We know people will use less care under such plans,” said Paul
Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change, a
nonpartisan group.
What is not so clear, Mr. Ginsburg said, is whether people will make —
or be able to make — rational choices between treatments that are not
particularly effective and treatments that may help them from becoming
sicker later.
Congress also seems intent on establishing some minimum insurance
standards so people with coverage could not end up with large piles of
unpaid medical bills anyway. Both the House and Senate bills contain
measures meant to eliminate lifetime maximum limits on coverage, for
example.
But that might end up affecting relatively few people. Many plans
limit how much they will pay out over a lifetime, but the ceilings are
generally so high that the vast majority of people never hit them,
according to a new study that used existing coverage for workers in
California to compare the House and Senate proposals.
The “impact of this change will be minimal on most employers, but
would be quite meaningful for the small number of employees who meet
the limits,” according to the study, conducted by policy analysts from
the University of California, Berkeley, the benefits consultant Watson
Wyatt Worldwide and the National Opinion Research Center at the
University of Chicago.
Congress is also considering annual limits on out-of-pocket medical
costs. The House seems to think $5,000 is as much as somebody should
pay in medical bills, while the Senate has picked a figure closer to
$6,000.
Under the Senate proposal, the new limits would not apply to self-
insured employers — big companies that provide their own insurance and
have enough employees to effectively spread the risk of paying any
large claims.
Congress is also considering other minimum standards for insurance,
like setting a baseline level of coverage for plans.
Still unclear is whether any of the new standards — the lifetime caps,
the out-of-pocket maximums, the minimum coverage standards — would
apply to employer-based policies.
Because most big companies already offer plans that would meet the
minimum standards being set, their workers would probably be
unaffected by the new rules in any case.
But it is a different story for small businesses. Much of the
legislation is aimed at making it easier for them to provide
affordable coverage by trying to make changes to the insurance market.
People working for small businesses — an estimated 40 percent of the
private labor force — could see their coverage affected. And if their
employer decided to use one of the new insurance exchanges, workers
might have a much broader choice of plans than they do now.
The premiums a small-business employee are charged could also change,
especially if that company’s work force is particularly young and
healthy. Those people could wind up paying more, Mr. Ginsburg said,
because the legislation tries to spread the risk of covering employees
with expensive medical conditions by setting new rules over how
insurers can determine premiums.
The real unknown, of course, is whether any final legislation will
accelerate the rise in premiums or slow it. At least one impartial
analysis, by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, concluded
that the legislation was not going to have much of an effect on the
cost of premiums either way.
There are plenty of doomsayers who argue that the cost of expanding
coverage to millions of people, many of whom will need help to pay
their premiums, is going to be borne by everyone else. But there are
others, including Mr. Obama, who argue that the legislation will make
health insurance more affordable than it would be otherwise. “If we
don’t pass it,” he recently said during a television interview,
“here’s the guarantee — your premiums will go up, your employers are
going to load up more costs on you.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/25/health/policy/25employer.html
snakehawk
<mavigoz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Now comes the time to say to all the Obamaniacs who thought he was the
> Second Coming: I TOLD YOU SO!!
>
> Obamaniacs were calling Hillary Bush's brother and worse. Hillary was
> supposedly really a Republican...no representative of "hope" and
> "change." What else did they say about Hillary?
>
> Countdown with Keith Olbermann, which I watch faithfully and, with the
> Maddow show, is probably a good thermometer to measure the fever of
> the very far left (Obama's base), has basically shown Obama to be a
> liar on how he campaigned on health care reform and how he has now
> basically sold out
>
There is a measure of satisfaction in reading this scathing
condemnation of the Republican Party. After watching the Republicans
in Congress acting in unison to kill off some of the most desirable
options president Obama wanted in the Senate bill, it's about time
perceptive posters come down hard on Republican obstructionists and
let everyone know they have been paying attention to what is going on
in Washington. Way to go, Winston.
Ken
Your point is valid with regard to the Republicans opposing much of the
bill, but the Democrats have an overwhelming majority. They could pass
anything they want without the Republicans. So it must be that that
Democrats shot down "the most desirable options president Obama wanted."
John Q Public
Or maybe it was public opinion (You know those po folks you detest in
representing) telling
the assholes in power no, too bad they didn't listen and crammed it
through anyway.
But, alas they will pay heavily un 2010 elections for their arrogance
and elitist attitude
Morton Davis
"snakehawk" <snak...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
news:7e22e69f-b25f-4e5a...@m25g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 24, 10:53 pm, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
<mavigoz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Now comes the time to say to all the Obamaniacs who thought he was the
> Second Coming: I TOLD YOU SO!!
>
> Obamaniacs were calling Hillary Bush's brother and worse. Hillary was
> supposedly really a Republican...no representative of "hope" and
> "change." What else did they say about Hillary?
>
> Countdown with Keith Olbermann, which I watch faithfully and, with the
> Maddow show, is probably a good thermometer to measure the fever of
> the very far left (Obama's base), has basically shown Obama to be a
> liar on how he campaigned on health care reform and how he has now
> basically sold out
>
There is a measure of satisfaction in reading this scathing
condemnation of the Republican Party. After watching the Republicans
in Congress acting in unison to kill off some of the most desirable
options president Obama wanted in the Senate bill,
Republicans have had no say in the bill. It is 100% on the Democrats.
snakehawk
>
> - Show quoted text -
All forty Republicans, like little programmed automatons, voted
against the bill while two or three Democrats voted against some of
the options. So you claim the Democrats, not the Republicans, are at
fault for the failure of parts of the bill to make it through. That's
typical Republican propaganda strategy.
The Republicans stand in the way of every move by the president to
ease the pressure of the Republican-created depression and accuse of
the President of failing to solve the problems of the Republican
created recession. The Republicans clamor for increased military
action and accuse the president of failing to end the Republican-
created wars in the middle east. The Republicans refuse to follow and
accuse the President of failing to lead. It's such an obvious ruse,
it's amazing that so many dupes are actually falling for it all.
pbj
It would be interesting to have a nonbinding secret vote just to see how
much support the bill has when Senators are free to vote their
conscience without being strongarmed by their respective parties.
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
Just what this country needs; secret votes in the Congress.
Ken
You just made my point. It was the few Democrats you cited who are
responsible for the failure of those parts not passing. What part of
having an overwhelming majority do you not understand??? John Q. Public
was right. The reason some of the Democrats could not bring themselves
to support those issues is they fear the voters or they were not bribed
sufficiently. I can tell you that the voters in my state cannot wait
for November so they can vote out those who refused to listen to their
views.
Recently there was a talk show on the radio where my U.S. senator and
representative answered calls. Not one caller supported their views,
and most said they needed to look for another job because they would not
have one after next January. People are pissed!!!
You liberals should think up a new excuse for your failures rather than
blaming GWB or the "Great right wing conspiracy."
Sid9
"Ken" <K...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:hh2kuk$v7j$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
.
More deceptive Republican comment.
The Democrats do NOT have an "overwhelming" majority.
Are you lying or is it that you don't understand how the senate works?
Ken
the word?" I (like most people), consider the 60% of democrats and
independent members voting the democrat line, to be overwhelming.
Apparently you do not see their senate majority as overwhelming, even
though democrats saw Obama's election with 53% of the vote as overwhelming.
John Q Public
Exactly, the Republicans couldn't block anything if they wanted too,
the majorities Dems
hold if they vote party line are unstoppable, no fillibusters..... it
is all on the Dems. It was a few
holdout Dems (Greedily selling their vote for their own political gain)
who stalled the process
and it was overwhelming public outrage which killed certain portions of bill.
BTW Public still overwhelmingly hates this bill and with the details of
the bribes to dems
with public money and the recent cbo number fiasco showing this to be
another deficit busting
monstrosity it will be surprising if half of it makes it through
reconciliation.
This also keeps the debate firmly in publics minds adding to dems and
BO's sinkin polls!
They could have passed some measures with tort reform, a pooling of aid
for uninsurable
(About 12 million actual) and gotten bi-partisan (Real) support and
given BO a win
and get it out of the publics eye
They will also be shocked when the ads showing the dems duplicity start
running in the late summer
as elections near.
They think just cause they voted no when the party had enough (Look at
close vote in House)
to pass is going to save them. Voters know and are gonna make em pay!
This will also hold true for spendaholic Republicans but, most of them
have seen the light
and have had that come to Jesus realization they better not repeat what
they did before!
Thats the change America was expecting and which the dems did not deliver!
GOP Altered History
Guess you don't understand the diff.
pbj
That's why I deliberately said, "nonbinding". I'm just curious just how
much of a role vote-buying, vote-trading, and party coercion play in the
outcome of legislation. It might be that the two sides cancel out here
and it doesn't have any net effect. Then again, if we keep seeing an
ongoing disparity that would have affected the passage of legislation,
we know we have a problem.
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
Missed that the first time. Still waking up. Carry on.
Sid9
.
Bullshit.
It depends on YOUR desire to be deceptive.
Padraigh ProAmerica
they have zero input. The dems control the whole shebang; even so they
had to bribe several of their membes to secure their votes. That dosn't
bode well for the future of the country.
"Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do and let them
surprise you with their ingenuity."
Gen. George S. Patton
Dänk 1010011010
<mavigoz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Countdown with Keith Olbermann, which I watch faithfully and, with the
> Maddow show, is probably a good thermometer to measure the fever of
> the very far left (Obama's base), has basically shown Obama to be a
> liar on how he campaigned on health care reform and how he has now
> basically sold out
Could have fooled me, since the last time I watched Olbermann or
Maddow they seemed to suggest that Obama's opponents were racist
domestic terrorists.
And although I have noticed more and more leftists beginning to
criticize Chairman Obama for failing to keep his campaign promises, it
really does not matter since they will all vote for him again. Who
else are they going to vote for, Sarah Palin?
Secular Human
Winston Smith has never quite gotten over that Obama beat Hillary. He
forgot to mention that HillaryCare bombed out and that led to a GOP
resurgence during the Clinton presidency. Obama is on the one year
line with health care. Hillary never even got across mid-filed with
her managed care that was a bare bones HMO.
Dänk 1010011010
Whether you agree with her agenda or not, Hillary was personally
responsible for drafting the Hillarycare proposal, even if it was
soundly rejected by the American public. Compare this to Barack Obama
who has no ideas of his own, and depends on Congress to draft a bill
that he will blame if it fails, and take credit for if it succeeds.
The ONLY reason Barack Obama pretends to care about national health
care is because it was part of Hillary Clinton's own platform during
her primary campaign, and Obama simply stole the idea from her. Obama
also stole John McCain's idea for economic stimulus, outbidding his
modest $54 billion stimulus up to over a trillion dollars. If Hillary
was a 12oz can of beer, Obama would be a 40oz bottle of malt liquor.
If McCain was a pack of cigarettes, Obama would be Menthol 100s.
Obama is just another mass-market consumer product, and can come in
any color or flavor the public wants.
Winston Smith, American Patriot
> On Dec 26, 12:16 am, Dänk 1010011010 <dank...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Dec 25, 10:53 am, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
>
> > <mavigoz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Countdown with Keith Olbermann, which I watch faithfully and, with the
> > > Maddow show, is probably a good thermometer to measure the fever of
> > > the very far left (Obama's base), has basically shown Obama to be a
> > > liar on how he campaigned on health care reform and how he has now
> > > basically sold out
>
> > Could have fooled me, since the last time I watched Olbermann or
> > Maddow they seemed to suggest that Obama's opponents were racist
> > domestic terrorists.
>
> > And although I have noticed more and more leftists beginning to
> > criticize Chairman Obama for failing to keep his campaign promises, it
> > really does not matter since they will all vote for him again. Who
> > else are they going to vote for, Sarah Palin?
>
> Winston Smith has never quite gotten over that Obama beat Hillary.
LOL!!! In the last 6 months, Obama has been grabbing his ankles as a
show of just how much he is willing to compromise on the core
principles by which he campaigned. If anyone has been looking like
Hillary in the eyes of a rabid far left revolutionary, it's Barry from
DC.
> He
> forgot to mention that HillaryCare bombed out
Haven't you been paying attention??? Health care reform attempts
numbering a dozen in the last 2-3 generations have been "bombing
out"! HillaryCare was just one of the noble efforts to get the nation
to WakeTFU!
Obama has staked his first term reputation on fixing this mess, and
his own party in the House and Senate have been twisted all inside
trying to figure out how they can take health insurance lobby cash in
one hand and serve the people on the other.
> and that led to a GOP
> resurgence during the Clinton presidency.
Horseshit! The 1994 takeover of the Congress by the GOP was
supposedly because of the Assault Weapons Ban bill passed by the
Democrats, and there was a perception that the federal government was
trying to take away the guns of Joe the Average Guy. Of course that
perception was complete nonsense, but then look at the millions who
actually take Sarah Palin seriously.
> Obama is on the one year
> line with health care. Hillary never even got across mid-filed with
> her managed care that was a bare bones HMO.
Health care wasn't the money-sucking monster it is now. Americans are
spending more money than ever and getting less quality health care
results than ever before. It is enough that it has reached the
perception of being a crisis. What percentage of Americans had no
access to health care (aside from being uninsured or underinsured) in
1993-94?
Keep comparing apples to oranges and you will always risk looking like
an ass.
Winston Smith, American Patriot
What is this need for "bipartisanship"??
Goddammit, between 2001-2007, too many (but not all thankfully)
Democrats started out being a bipartisan-willing, let-bygones-be-
bygones-after-the-2000-Supreme-Court-Outrage minority, and the
Republicans SHIT on them at every moment. Cutting off debate,
threatening to nuke the filibuster, ramming through Constitution-
raping monstrosities such as the Patriot Act and imposing Soviet-style
no-fly travel restrictions. Not to mention the crime against the
peace called the Iraq War, which I and many others knew and were
posting right here that the evidence required for invading a sovereign
state like Iraq was NOT DEMONSTRATED.
Let the Democrats show some FUCKING SPINE for a change!!
The Republicans, far from being the Party of Lincoln any longer, have
opposed every major social reform movement of this and the 20th
centuries! Haven't the American people been able to read history and
learn just how completely and monumentally irrelevant this party is by
now?
Bush, Cheney, and PNAC gave us Reaganomics II, just to reiterate to us
what a failure Reaganomics was when Ronny himself brought it to us
with its massive spending that tripled the national debt and gave us
the Reagan-BushI recession, and which has now given us the BushII
Great Recession. California used to rank as a world economic power,
and with its more than 12% unemployment and the possibility that
industries like biotech, info tech, and media entertainment might
actually find centers in other states---or worse, in other countries---
it may end up looking like Alabama as an economic power although more
than half the population is Hispanic.
If people want to put more Republicans back in Congress in 2010, and
even give those idiots the Congress back after only 4 years (and just
2 years since W!), then America really deserves the hell that will
consume it. If people are too goddam dumb to know what is good for
them, then let the forces of natural selection condemn such a species
to oblivion.
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
> Whether you agree with her agenda or not, Hillary was personally
> responsible for drafting the Hillarycare proposal, even if it was
> soundly rejected by the American public. Compare this to Barack Obama
> who has no ideas of his own, and depends on Congress to draft a bill
> that he will blame if it fails, and take credit for if it succeeds.
Nice try, but CONGRESS didn't get to vote on health care back then, let
alone the American public. One reason Clinton got hammered in the
following elections was because he was seen as wussing on health care,
gay rights, a comprehensive energy plan and trying too hard to placade
the Republicans.
If it was dissatisfaction with his policies themselves, he would have
lost in '96. Hint: he didn't.
>
> The ONLY reason Barack Obama pretends to care about national health care
> is because it was part of Hillary Clinton's own platform during her
> primary campaign, and Obama simply stole the idea from her. Obama also
> stole John McCain's idea for economic stimulus, outbidding his modest
> $54 billion stimulus up to over a trillion dollars. If Hillary was a
> 12oz can of beer, Obama would be a 40oz bottle of malt liquor. If McCain
> was a pack of cigarettes, Obama would be Menthol 100s. Obama is just
> another mass-market consumer product, and can come in any color or
> flavor the public wants.
Funny how you picked two marketing items specifically aimed at the black
population.
McCain would have been an utter disaster and the country would be in
economic ruin by now if he had been elected and Pubs somehow able to take
back the House and Senate.
Winston Smith, American Patriot
> "snakehawk" <snakeh...@MailAndNews.com> wrote in message
Bullshit. Many ideas of the Republicans were included in the bill.
In fact, the gutting of the bill to remove single payer, public opt-
ins and opt-outs, medicare inclusions were attempts to get just the
one or two votes of so-called "moderate" Republicans, who turned out
to put partisanship before the public interest.
History shows that Republicans have never been behind the major social
reforms that have turned out to benefit this nation. Reforms in the
banking sector actually allowed the lower and middle classes to get
out of serfdom and to own houses and cars and send their first-of-
their-generation children to complete a university education.
Republicans always stood in the way of this progress throughout the
last century.
Why anyone continues to think Republicans are relevant is beyond the
reason of any sensible individual.
The only reason is people might vote for a Republican is possibly
explained by that perverse human failing which motivates one to want
to visit the scene of a train wreck and perhaps to see what corpses
mangled by twisted metal look like. It's a sick act to want to do
such a thing, just as it is to vote Republican.
Dänk 1010011010
wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 21:47:38 -0800, Dänk 1010011010 wrote:
> > The ONLY reason Barack Obama pretends to care about national health care
> > is because it was part of Hillary Clinton's own platform during her
> > primary campaign, and Obama simply stole the idea from her. Obama also
> > stole John McCain's idea for economic stimulus, outbidding his modest
> > $54 billion stimulus up to over a trillion dollars. If Hillary was a
> > 12oz can of beer, Obama would be a 40oz bottle of malt liquor. If McCain
> > was a pack of cigarettes, Obama would be Menthol 100s. Obama is just
> > another mass-market consumer product, and can come in any color or
> > flavor the public wants.
>
> Funny how you picked two marketing items specifically aimed at the black
> population.
The racism is on your part, blaming blacks for succumbing to
aggressive marketing campaigns. My point is that Brand Obama will
always be 'more' than rival brands. If Hillary was an energy drink,
Brand Obama would contain more caffeine. If McCain was Kool-Aid,
Brand Obama would contain more sugar and cyanide.
amatbus2002
<mavigoz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Now comes the time to say to all the Obamaniacs who thought he was the
> Second Coming: I TOLD YOU SO!!
>
> Obamaniacs were calling Hillary Bush's brother and worse. Hillary was
> supposedly really a Republican...no representative of "hope" and
> "change." What else did they say about Hillary?
Do you remember what the late Massachusett Senator Edward Kennedy
called one of his greatest regrets of his career?
The chance for "I Told you So!" is over. After all, people are called
into the Spirit of Service by a cause greater than themselves. It is
not about us, the people with insurance coverage, but about the people
who don't and how to move this nation forward. Amen. Otherwise, the
candidate does not deserve to be president. Otherwise, we are no
better than the neo-cons.
Hillary Clinton herself said likewise:
Watch what she said in one of her greatest moments:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91brmsKeqcQ
> The House bill with the Stupak amendment stripped is the best chance
> for "hope" and "change" and real health care reform.
The Hope and Change part really do come from US--the regular people,
you'd understand?
As Gandhi put it, "Be the change you would want to see in this
world."
Of course, we, too, need to change our habits--bad habits, eating
habit, exercise habit, etc.
> Even with both bills, there are enough loopholes which will not reduce
> profits to companies and the premium payouts of Joe The Regular Guy,
> which will likely go up another 200% by the time Obama runs for re-
> election.
That's why I still support the idea of having a public option
somehow. The idea of Competition is a vital element to make this
system work.
> ======
>
> As Health Bill Advances, Few Changes Seen for Millions
> Stephen Crowley/The New York Times
>
> By REED ABELSON
> Published: December 24, 2009
>
> As President Obama once promised, “If you like your health plan, you
> can keep your health plan.”
>
> That may be true even if you don’t like your health plan. And no one
> seems to agree on whether the legislation will do much to reduce
> workers’ continually rising out-of-pocket costs.
<snip><snip>
> The legislation should give most working people “the guarantee of
> security if their circumstances change,” said Karen Davis, the
> president of the Commonwealth Fund, an independent research group that
> has studied the House and Senate bills.
>
God First, Country Second, Party Last
=================================
ADS
amatbus2002
> On Dec 24, 7:53 pm, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
> Hillary Clinton herself said likewise:
>
> Watch what she said in one of her greatest moments:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91brmsKeqcQ
Wrong link, here's the correct one:
Hillary Clinton at the end of the Texas debate:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUKMWTO7RWI
God First, Country Second, Party Last
=============================
ADS
John Q Public
Yep, their all wonderin where them new cars, new homes and new aid checks
are! Seems all the entitlement babies feel a little left out.
Boo Hoo Hoo
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
z- Nice dance, Danky, but there's nothing racist in that. You're just as
susceptable, perhaps more so, because you have to be completely
brainwashed to be a libertarian and believe the corporations have nothing
but our best interests at heart.
Now, either you'll have to admit that aggressive advertising works, or
admit that your masters are wasting tens of billions of dollars a year on
them.
Now, speaking of poison brands, tell us what the libertarians have to
offer us. Appeal to our best interests.
Patriot Games
<snak...@MailAndNews.com> wrote:
Hated by everyone...
Alone at home on Christmas morning...
Spreading self-loathing and hate on the Internet...
Truly, utterly, pathetic...
Patriot Games
liberal
> > <mavigoz...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Now comes the time to say to all the Obamaniacs who thought he was the
> >> Second Coming: I TOLD YOU SO!!
>
> >> Obamaniacs were calling Hillary Bush's brother and worse. Hillary was
> >> supposedly really a Republican...no representative of "hope" and
> >> "change." What else did they say about Hillary?
>
> >> Maddow show, is probably a good thermometer to measure the fever of
> >> the very far left (Obama's base), has basically shown Obama to be a
> >> liar on how he campaigned on health care reform and how he has now
> >> basically sold out
>
> > condemnation of the Republican Party. After watching the Republicans
> > in Congress acting in unison to kill off some of the most desirable
> > perceptive posters come down hard on Republican obstructionists and
> > let everyone know they have been paying attention to what is going on
> > in Washington. Way to go, Winston.
>
> Your point is valid with regard to the Republicans opposing much of the
> bill, but the Democrats have an overwhelming majority. They could pass
> anything they want without the Republicans. So it must be that that
The problem is the Democratic party has two wings: liberal and
conservative (aka: DINOs. The DINOs joined the rethugs to kill real
reform.
liberal
Oh, those "democrats" were bribed sufficiently. Bribed to vote again
real reform.
liberal
Well, no doubt that was the reason in several states, but a greater
reason was the tax increases in Clinton's first budget. It passed by
one vote in the House (that Rep. was defeated in that election cycle).
The rethugs promised the tax increase would create a depression.
People believed.
Another issue was the kiting of checks by senators and representatives
and the postage stamp scandal (Rostenkowski went to prison). Because
democrats were nominally in control of Congress, voters held democrats
responsible.
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
I don't pay any attention to your silly little easter bunny holidays.
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
Notice that Newt's Congress made no effort to eliminate the tax
increases.
They didn't believe their own bullshit even back then.
Dänk 1010011010
wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:57:42 -0800, Dänk 1010011010 wrote:
> > The racism is on your part, blaming blacks for succumbing to
> > aggressive marketing campaigns. My point is that Brand Obama will
> > always be 'more' than rival brands. If Hillary was an energy drink,
> > Brand Obama would contain more caffeine. If McCain was Kool-Aid,
> > Brand Obama would contain more sugar and cyanide.
>
> z- Nice dance, Danky, but there's nothing racist in that. You're just as
> susceptable, perhaps more so, because you have to be completely
> brainwashed to be a libertarian and believe the corporations have nothing
> but our best interests at heart.
I was criticizing mass-market advertising campaigns, and you somehow
interpreted this as support for corporations.
I already told you I was an anarchist, though I have voted Libertarian
in the past. Not all libertarians support corporatism, though I'll
admit the LP doesn't seem very critical of it, preferring to focus on
opposing government oppression.
Because of the LP's seeming support for corporatism, I voted for Ralph
Nader twice and Cynthia McKinney last time. Their leftist tendencies
are not ideal, but perhaps a new party that blends libertarian values
of freedom from government with leftist values of freedom from
corporations will emerge in the future.
There is one movement described as 'libertarian socialism' or 'anarcho-
syndicalism' which claims to oppose control over individuals by ANY
large organizations - government or private business. Unfortunately,
it is unrealistic because it relies on 'grassroots' collectives such
as labor unions to oppose the institutions of power.
Humans don't form collectives on their own, they are herded by
charismatic leaders into joining movements that serve the needs of the
leaders and not those of the individuals coerced into joining (e.g.,
the Employee 'Free Choice' Act). The idea is very similar to
Communism, in which all 'workers movements' eventually degenerate into
totalitarian dictatorships. This is why I am an anarchist and refuse
to join ANY group.
5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09
<dan...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>On Dec 26, 11:08�am, "5306 Dead, 439 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
>wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 22:57:42 -0800, D�nk 1010011010 wrote:
>> > The racism is on your part, blaming blacks for succumbing to
>> > aggressive marketing campaigns. �My point is that Brand Obama will
>> > always be 'more' than rival brands. �If Hillary was an energy drink,
>> > Brand Obama would contain more caffeine. �If McCain was Kool-Aid,
>> > Brand Obama would contain more sugar and cyanide.
>>
>> z- Nice dance, Danky, but there's nothing racist in that. �You're just as
>> susceptable, perhaps more so, because you have to be completely
>> brainwashed to be a libertarian and believe the corporations have nothing
>> but our best interests at heart.
>
>I was criticizing mass-market advertising campaigns, and you somehow
>interpreted this as support for corporations.
>
So we're done trying to associate Obama with Forties and menthol
cigarettes? Good. Next you'ld be dragging out the fried chicken and
watermelon.
>I already told you I was an anarchist, though I have voted Libertarian
>in the past. Not all libertarians support corporatism, though I'll
>admit the LP doesn't seem very critical of it, preferring to focus on
>opposing government oppression.
The technical term for a libertarian who supports corporatism is
"fascist".
>
>Because of the LP's seeming support for corporatism, I voted for Ralph
>Nader twice and Cynthia McKinney last time. Their leftist tendencies
>are not ideal, but perhaps a new party that blends libertarian values
>of freedom from government with leftist values of freedom from
>corporations will emerge in the future.
>
>There is one movement described as 'libertarian socialism' or 'anarcho-
>syndicalism' which claims to oppose control over individuals by ANY
>large organizations - government or private business. Unfortunately,
>it is unrealistic because it relies on 'grassroots' collectives such
>as labor unions to oppose the institutions of power.
You can't strip such of power; all you can do is contain that power.
Americans have failed in the mission the founders set for them, which
was to use the government as a tool to prevent the takeover by
churches and the aristocracy. Now the question is, "Where do we go
from here?"
>
>Humans don't form collectives on their own, they are herded by
>charismatic leaders into joining movements that serve the needs of the
>leaders and not those of the individuals coerced into joining (e.g.,
>the Employee 'Free Choice' Act). The idea is very similar to
>Communism, in which all 'workers movements' eventually degenerate into
>totalitarian dictatorships. This is why I am an anarchist and refuse
>to join ANY group.
Actually, humans are nothing without collectives. We are tribalist to
our core, because that's how we survived and came to prevail.