Here's what your President, not mine, said about the millions of people opposed to Obamacare...

"I don't get it. Why are folks working so hard for people not to have health insurance? Why are they so mad about the idea of people having health insurance?"

Nice! Not once in my life have I ever been mad at the notion of someone else having insurance.

Obama is either a liar, or incredibly clueless. And he's not that clueless to really believe that. So again, let's demonize the opposition, by blaming them for saying awful things (never mind we never said any such thing), rather than respond to what we are actually saying.

He's right about one thing, the man does not "get it." We could fill the oceans with what he doesn't "get".

Ben Franklin once said "those who would trade liberty for security, deserve neither" (paraphrasing). I happen to disagree with that statement, becaus ehe seems to be saying that those who don't want to get blown up, deserve to get blown up. But lots of people agree aith that. Fine. Well then, what do people deserve who would trade liberty for Sandra Fluke's free rubbers?

I'm glad that, rather than asking us what our concerns actually are, he simply paints us all as hate-mongers so that he can get back to what really matters, dinner with Jay Z and Beyonce.

I think what Ben Franklin was implying was that if we trade liberty (freedom to defend ourselves) for security (let someone else decide our fates) we will end up with neither, meaning the results will not be in our best interest.

But 7 million people signed up! Nothing about those only doing so to avoid the mandatory fine!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He's not your President? That's a pretty unpatriotic thing to say...

-spence

He's not your President? That's a pretty unpatriotic thing to say...

-spence


I'll bey you ask most anyone in the military and they will say the same.

I'll bey you ask most anyone in the military and they will say the same.

So why would you follow orders of someone who wasn't Commander in Chief?

-spence

Here's what your President, not mine, said about the millions of people opposed to Obamacare...

"I don't get it. Why are folks working so hard for people not to have health insurance? Why are they so mad about the idea of people having health insurance?"

Nice! Not once in my life have I ever been mad at the notion of someone else having insurance.



I have yet to hear ONE person say "they are mad about the idea of people having health insurance." They are mad about CHANGING 100% of our populations health insurance for the 10% that don't have it. That doesn't make sense to people that have common sense.
Let's face it, besides being this being part of his agenda of big government control, is the Presidents plan to make it his legacy. Pretty selfish for one person to disrupt 300 million people' lives so he can leave a name for himself.

So why would you follow orders of someone who wasn't Commander in Chief?

-spence

Because they have to...apparently U were never in the military

But 7 million people signed up! Nothing about those only doing so to avoid the mandatory fine!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

figures E not in yet

He's not your President? That's a pretty unpatriotic thing to say...

-spence

He is noy my president....Semper Fi....did not vote for him

So why would you follow orders of someone who wasn't Commander in Chief?

-spence

Because Soldiers take an oath to support and defend the Constitution first and follow lawful orders second. Kind of ironic our president doesn't believe in the Constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

He's not your President? That's a pretty unpatriotic thing to say...

-spence

No, he's not. Wen he characterizes my desire to uphold the Constitution as a desire for others to not have health insurance, then no, he is not representing me.


You got your digs in against me. Your thoughts on Obama's words?

I have yet to hear ONE person say "they are mad about the idea of people having health insurance." .

Of course you haven't heard anyone say that, because no one is saying that. Obama knows that no one believes that, which necessarily mean that he is a liar.

How's that "change"?

Kind of ironic our president doesn't believe in the Constitution.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's especially ironic given that he taught Constitutional Law at Law School. Can you imagine the political slant in that class, back in his radical, chummy-with-Bill-Ayers days? How'd you like to have been a conservative in that class?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/04/04/billions-spent-on-attacking-obamacare/


he also said this...the author desperately tries to give el presidente the benefit of the doubt realizing that he doesn't understand what the difference between millions and billions is.... but in the end awards two Pinocchio's.....like everything that comes out of this president's mouth, you have to assume the opposite is true or it's complete distortion...then you won't act so surprised when it happens:)

Hillary for President!

http://capitolcityproject.com/hillary-struggles-list-accomplishments-secretary-state-tenure/

So why would you follow orders of someone who wasn't Commander in Chief?

-spence


Talk to anyone in the military, present & past.

How's that "change"?


HOPLESS. :(

But 7 million people signed up! Nothing about those only doing so to avoid the mandatory fine!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device



According to reports of that 7 million that sign up about 24% are people who didn't have insurance prior.
So that leaves 76% who did have insurance cancelled and had to sign up to avoid penalties.
Also, How many of that 7 million signed up have actually paid into premiums ? 858,298 is the only number found.

What a joke just like every other thing they have done since stealing the last 2 elections !!!

Seems like the numbers are swinging positive now that things are moving. With the technical issues and war against the bill it's no wonder support declined.

Wait until the GOP tries to take away the exemption for preexisting conditions...then think about your quote above.

My 23 year old step-son is also able to be on my insurance for a few more years. A nice thing as he's trying to find a job and with his dad dying just before he graduated college doesn't have a lot of options.

Obama's words are just some basic rhetoric. His bigger problem is that he wasn't out in front marketing the ACA all along...

-spence

Seems like the numbers are swinging positive now that things are moving. With the technical issues and war against the bill it's no wonder support declined.

Wait until the GOP tries to take away the exemption for preexisting conditions...then think about your quote above.

My 23 year old step-son is also able to be on my insurance for a few more years. A nice thing as he's trying to find a job and with his dad dying just before he graduated college doesn't have a lot of options.

Obama's words are just some basic rhetoric. His bigger problem is that he wasn't out in front marketing the ACA all along...

-spence

Your step son could have been provided for without it costing everyone else or blowing up a system that most didn't want changed .
Obama lied when he did market the "ACA" that's the problem .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

...or blowing up a system that most didn't want changed .

Check your facts...

-spence

Obama's words are just some basic rhetoric. His bigger problem is that he wasn't out in front marketing the ACA all along...

-spence

And there you have it. Obama shamelessly lies through his teeth and assaults the decency of tens of millions of Americans he swore to protect, and Spence dismisses it as "basic rhetoric".

Spence, it's a whole lot easier to demonize us, than it is to respond to what we are actually saying.

I say that Christians should not be forced to pay for Sandra Fluke's rubbers. Obama says that's because I am angry at the notion that anyone has healthcare.

We deserve so much better than this. Or maybe we don't, given that we elected this lying, Bolshevik a**ole twice.

Jim, I hate to break this to you...but the ACA doesn't cover rubbers.

Your obsession with Sandra Fluke's sex life however may continue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Your obsession with Sandra Fluke's sex life however may continue.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

As will your refusal to address any legitimate concerns over Obama's competence or, in this case, honesty.

Rather than explain why forcing employers to provide free contraception isn't unconstitutional, he tries to make everyone hate us by lying about our position.

Why can't you be an honest adult for 3 seconds and tell us what you think about a President who would stoop to that.

My only obsession with her sex life, is that I want to be left out of it. She is the one dragging me into it, by insisting that she has the right to reach into my wallet.

My only obsession with her sex life, is that I want to be left out of it. She is the one dragging me into it, by insisting that she has the right to reach into my wallet.

I think you're fascinated by it. You pepper your posts with words like "fornicate" and "rubbers" for their titillating enhancement. Now you're vividly depicting Fluke dragging you around against your will in a bondage fantasy that would make NEWPORTMAFIA blush.

-spence

As will your refusal to address any legitimate concerns over Obama's competence or, in this case, honesty.

I'm sure that Spence considers Obama to be very competent. He pretty much has approved of all his foreign policy, considering it all to be "played well." He wants to give the ACA "a chance." He believes that the Repubs have made it difficult to govern, that it's their fault we're in a mess not Obama's. And that the economy is picking up, and the ACA thing is smoothing out of its little hitches and starting to roll. ETC. And about the honesty thing . . . you have to remember that Spence considers himself to be a pragmatist. The ultimate pragmatist, Machiavelli, would have approved of lying. Lying in order to achieve goals, govern well, is amoral. It is "smart."

Rather than explain why forcing employers to provide free contraception isn't unconstitutional, he tries to make everyone hate us by lying about our position.

Again, you call it "lying," Spence would see it as "smart." Pragmatism trumps morality.

Why can't you be an honest adult for 3 seconds and tell us what you think about a President who would stoop to that.

A pragmatist would stoop to whatever it takes to get the job done.

My only obsession with her sex life, is that I want to be left out of it. She is the one dragging me into it, by insisting that she has the right to reach into my wallet.

Spence probably doesn't care about her getting into your wallet. Fluke is a promising progressive who will probably be running for political office in the near future. She will be a standard bearer for the "women's" issue part of the progressive platform, and be a big electoral draw on "smart" women's issues.

Besides, Spence is a "centrist." He is in the center of whatever is. So he is always right. You, on the other hand, are on the fringe of center. You're an extremist. Extremists are always wrong. NOT.

Spence doesn't have to answer any questions. He is usually the one asking questions, not too often making definitive statements. So long as the progressive movement forges ahead, maintaining or gaining ground, politics are on his side, and he can disregard your questions (or anybody else's), and merely respond with sarcastic jabs.

Sounds like someone's jealous.

-spence

Spence probably doesn't care about her getting into your wallet. Fluke is a promising progressive who will probably be running for political office in the near future. She will be a standard bearer for the "women's" issue part of the progressive platform, and be a big electoral draw on "smart" women's issues.

Besides, Spence is a "centrist." He is in the center of whatever is. So he is always right. You, on the other hand, are on the fringe of center. You're an extremist. Extremists are always wrong. NOT.

Spence doesn't have to answer any questions. He is usually the one asking questions, not too often making definitive statements. So long as the progressive movement forges ahead, maintaining or gaining ground, politics are on his side, and he can disregard your questions (or anybody else's), and merely respond with sarcastic jabs.

"Fluke is a promising progressive who will probably be running for political office in the near future"

You need to keep up with the news. She's running for State Senate in California. Hip hip, hooray! Her resume reads "been in school my whole life, then went on TV and shoved my sex life in everyone's face, and demanded that they pay for it, because racisthatecrimeintolerantwaronwomenkeepyourrosarie soffmyovaries, that's why."

"Spence is a "centrist." "

Then so was Mao.

I think you're fascinated by it. You pepper your posts with words like "fornicate" and "rubbers" for their titillating enhancement. Now you're vividly depicting Fluke dragging you around against your will in a bondage fantasy that would make NEWPORTMAFIA blush.

-spence
what I am , is contemptuous of the lot of them, including their apologists, which includes you.

If you don't like the word 'fornicate', then you should ask yourself why you endlessly and thoughtlessly support those who cannot refrain from screaming about that part of their lives into any microphone or TV camera, instead of keeping it in private where it belongs. I guess I'm not that evolved or sophisticated, because my only interest is in being left out of it. If Sandra Fluke insists on dragging me into it, then I get to articulate my response. If your side doesn't want to hear my position on such things, then all you need to do is stop reaching into my wallet in relation to it, and try to refrain from trampling on the constitution. Then do whatever you want and I'll keep mum.

Still dodging about the shameless lies of your man-crush, I see.

She (Fluke) will be a standard bearer for the "women's" issue part of the progressive platform, and be a big electoral draw on "smart" women's issues.

.

The day that hideous witch becomes the standard bearer for women, is the day I give serious thought to switching teams, if'n you know what I mean. She is absolutely repugnant, in every conceivable way a human being can be. Just knowing that she disagrees with me, is all I need to know that I am on the right side of any issue.

Blech.

I loved her speech at the DNC, aka abortion-pallooza. What a lovely platform that have on that side.

Sounds like someone's jealous.

-spence

OK . . . so you just proved that I was wrong about you always being right. On the other hand, I was spot on that you: "merely respond with sarcastic jabs." That's . . . not . . . really . . . something to be jealous of.

Just giving away more fish...

But 7 million people signed up! Nothing about those only doing so to avoid the mandatory fine!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device


Whats the percentage of those who signed up that are SUBSIDIZED?

Just giving away more fish...

It is really sad but true.This country has got their backs to the wall but the handouts keep flowing.I have a hard time blaming those who abuse the system,who would turn their back on a handout?This is really just Obama paying back his peeps,on our dime unfortunately.

Jim,there could be some dockage in Edgartown available this summer!

YES!!!! ...seven million plus have signed up at least according to the HHS chair person...is it TRUE???.....amaszing she knew the exact figure on the last day, but knew nutin prior to...how many signed up to avoid the penalty????

Here is the big question....R rubber dolls covered under the ACA ..... could have been a big draw for some men....LOL...:)

This explains it

I have yet to hear ONE person say "they are mad about the idea of people having health insurance." They are mad about CHANGING 100% of our populations health insurance for the 10% that don't have it. That doesn't make sense to people that have common sense.
Let's face it, besides being this being part of his agenda of big government control, is the Presidents plan to make it his legacy. Pretty selfish for one person to disrupt 300 million people' lives so he can leave a name for himself.

That's how I see things.

(I didn't vote for him either)

On the other hand, I was spot on that you: "merely respond with sarcastic jabs." That's . . . not . . . really . . . something to be jealous of.

And an anecdote fills the white wash bucket to the brim. You couldn't have summarized the problems with the GOP more succinctly had Maddow written the talking point herself.

-spence

And an anecdote fills the white wash bucket to the brim. You couldn't have summarized the problems with the GOP more succinctly had Maddow written the talking point herself.

-spence

I have become accustomed to trying to figure out what you are talking about. Though it can be mind wrenching and sometimes worth the effort, there are times when I don't succeed. This is one of those times.

I don't know which anecdote to which you refer. Nor do I remember summarizing the problems with the GOP, at least not in this thread. As for those problems, my opinion is that the so-called "establishment" or "centrist" Repubs are mini-Dems. They may differ in variously articulated policies, but ultimately cave in not only to progressive notions, but to the progressive defining principal that government is the answer. Why you consider them obstructionist is puzzling. I recall you once saying that the two parties keep each other in check from straying too far from "center." That establishment Republicans publically say what you consider ultra-conservative things, doesn't ultimately translate into action. That is what's called appealing to the base--pragmatism. You do approve of pragmatism, don't you?

Why Repub theorists believe that average folks would choose mini over maxi is also puzzling. Well, I suppose they believe that when progressive policies eventually lead into the inevitable and predictable crises, they can pretend to provide saving conservative alternatives. Of course, eventually, if that succeeds in getting them elected, they revert, after brief "conservative" fixes, to big government status. And so we "progress."

On the other hand, the truly conservative Repubs and libertarians don't appear to be pretending. They actually mean what they say, and are therefor a threat to the established ruling class of maxi- Dems and mini-Dem Repubs as well as their crony capitalist boot lickers. In my opinion, Tea Party types, true "conservatives" of a constitutionalist stripe are, rather than a problem to be marginalized and eradicated, the, or a, solution to the ever expanding social and fiscal crisis which the "main stream" progressive political and social ruling class is constantly driving us.

In my opinion, progressivism is a dead end top-down authoritarian political system which ultimately leads to static social and economic paralysis. It actually reduces and ultimately limits choices instead of expanding them as it professes to do. Centralization, by definition, is limitation. Doing so for the sake of order and efficiency leads to ant colony or bee hive systemization. And that is even further exacerbated by the inevitable rise of mediocre bureaucrats who will be those who regulate what is permissible and what is not.

Although our founded constitutional system is not necessarily the only way to achieve a fluid, evolutionary social and political regime, it is the one we have, what is left of it.

The choice of which system of government we wish to have boils down to the question of what is the purpose of government. The Founders created a system for the purpose of maximizing individual freedom by limiting governmental authority, yet providing it with some necessary essentials. The purpose, as far as I can tell, of the progressive system is to achieve collective freedoms which are limited by the wisdom of all-powerful bureacrats.

Both systems "work" in respect to their goals. What do we want to "work" for us? The ACA, a great progressive achievement, will eventually "work." So will a free market system of health care. They "work" in different ways to achieve different goals. The Mafia system of local government also "works." All the isms "work" to achieve their specified goals. Thievery, corruption, force, all work, but are they "right"?

That the ACA, or progressivism in general, works begs the question if they are right. And what are they right in respect to. Ultimately, the question is still a viable one--is the objective a collectivist or an individualistic society. Choosing one or the other is the answer to if progressivism is right, or if constitutionalism is right.

After giving his glowing report on Obamacare yesterday, he said there should be No more
debate about Repealing it. :rotf3: :rotf3: :rotf3: :bs: Dream on my man, Dream on. :)

Seems like the numbers are swinging positive now that things are moving. With the technical issues and war against the bill it's no wonder support declined.

-spence

not really sure what is considered "positive"...maybe that's more "normalized reality" talk...as of 5/4

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

5/5 USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/05/usa-today-pew-poll-midterm-landscape-tilts-to-gop/8520429/

"Views of the Affordable Care Act haven't brightened, even after problems with the website were fixed and 8 million people signed up for insurance before the March 31 deadline. In the poll, 41% approve of the law, a record 55% disapprove of it."

By more than 2-1, 65%-30%, Americans say they want the president elected in 2016 to pursue different policies and programs than the Obama administration, rather than similar ones.


I know, I know...the sources are all the usual "haters" and ne'er-do-wells throwing conspiracy theories about....

not really sure what is considered "positive"...maybe that's more "normalized reality" talk...as of 5/4

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health_care_plan-1130.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president_obama_job_approval-1044.html

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/direction_of_country-902.html

5/5 USA TODAY http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2014/05/05/usa-today-pew-poll-midterm-landscape-tilts-to-gop/8520429/

"Views of the Affordable Care Act haven't brightened, even after problems with the website were fixed and 8 million people signed up for insurance before the March 31 deadline. In the poll, 41% approve of the law, a record 55% disapprove of it."

By more than 2-1, 65%-30%, Americans say they want the president elected in 2016 to pursue different policies and programs than the Obama administration, rather than similar ones.


I know, I know...the sources are all the usual "haters" and ne'er-do-wells throwing conspiracy theories about....

But Scott, what about the NARRATIVE? Won't someone please think about the NARRATIVE?

I have a sister-in-law who is an Obama worshipper, makes Spence look like Ann Coulter. Scary, I know. Anyway, she was telling me this weekend all the reasons why the Democrats are going to win big this November. I just smiled and walked away, hoping that all the Democrats up for election think the same thing, and therefore do nothing to prevent what's actually going to happen.

.

Both systems "work" in respect to their goals. .

I'm not so sure. Did Soviet communism produce the worker's paradise that Obama, Spence, and Occupy Wall Street fantasize over?

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post

Both systems "work" in respect to their goals. .


I'm not so sure. Did Soviet communism produce the worker's paradise that Obama, Spence, and Occupy Wall Street fantasize over?

I'm assuming they had a different definition of paradise than yours. Theirs' required the removal of God, who would be replaced by a dictatorship of the proletariat. It also required the removal of profit which they considered wealth in excess of that which was created by labor. It also required a leveling, or equality, of wealth among the masses, and the elimination of unequal masses of wealth accumulated by a few (but with the unmentioned unequal wealth granted to the higher ups in the party). So . . . I guess that went according to plan . . . sort of . . . notice I did put "work" in quotes.

Gosh . . . replace dictatorship of the proletariat with "government" and it does seem that what "worked" for the soviet communists is not substantially different from what you refer to as the fantasy that progressives will make work for us and the rest of the world . . . of course, in a more advanced and smarter and more responsible way.

. . . fantasy that progressives will make work for us and the rest of the world of course, in a more advanced and smarter and more responsible way.

speaking of which...Paul Krugman was having a fit recently in an article that he wrote attacking the GOP for lying about Obamacare through polls that they conducted and misconstrued for political reason in, as Spence would say, their "War on the ACA".....a pretty smart writer pointed out that this is a little hypocritical of Krugman as the polls were only done as a result of the Administration(most open, honest and transparent in history) refusing to support their claims about enrollments with facts and statistics and of course, the ACA itself which was hatched, reared, passed and continues it's troubled adolescence based on lies and distortions....


I'll give Spence credit for one thing he's said that is correct, which is that this is "war"....debate and discussion rely on the notion that both parties are working toward "truth" as a meaningful resolution to whatever is being debated or discussed....at whatever point one side determines that truth can and/or will be a casualty in their pursuit of their goal, it then becomes a "battle" as one side cannot reasonably toss aside rules written or understood and expect or demand that the other side maintain those rules......this would make them unreasonable...as we see...:uhuh: