Well The Big Day Has Arrived

veggiegardener

Well-Known Member
The Republican spent two years in a racist, obstructionist attack on everything Obama attempted to do.

When the economy goes bust, because of the GOPs greed, I plan on subsisting on one Republican a week.

Roast the good cuts, and jerk the rest.

Jerk jerky.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
The Republican spent two years in a racist, obstructionist attack on everything Obama attempted to do.

When the economy goes bust, because of the GOPs greed, I plan on subsisting on one Republican a week.

Roast the good cuts, and jerk the rest.

Jerk jerky.
Racist? LOL!
Credibility FAIL.

Obstructionist?
How can that be when the Democrats had the majority in both Houses of Congress and held the White House all this time?

Wait... is the term White House racist, too? :-P

The economy already has gone bust.

It was in all the papers.

GOP greed pales in comparison to Democrat greed... for the taxpayer's money.

Partisan rebuttal FAIL.
 

jeff f

New Member
not to get back on track but my predictions were fairly close. little high on house and senate, a little low on govrns. i gues the sentiment aroud the country were pretty close to the way they were here. pennsylvania was a total repub sweep as was ohio, wisc,and a couple others.

note to liberals, keep talking, we love it.
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
The Republican spent two years in a racist, obstructionist attack on everything Obama attempted to do.

When the economy goes bust, because of the GOPs greed, I plan on subsisting on one Republican a week.

Roast the good cuts, and jerk the rest.

Jerk jerky.
And here we go again. More regurtitation of MSNBC talking points. :dunce:


 

Attachments

undertheice

Well-Known Member
The Republican spent two years in a racist, obstructionist attack on everything Obama attempted to do.
here's a little clue for you. "racist" and "obstructionist" are just a couple of political buzz words that do nothing but reduce your credibility. if you want to be taken seriously by anyone but brain-dead uber-liberals, you should probably avoid references to hitler and nazis in general, middle americans who cling to their bibles and their guns and the whole fascism thing as well. let's leave that stuff to the talking heads on msnbc.
:bigjoint:
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
please accept my apologies in responding. had some final moving duties and some trim work (gotta love harvest season).

Spare me the high-minded condescension.

You know as well as I do when Gloria Steinem talks about pay disparity between the sexes she does not break it down by profession. She and all of the other gender-pimps talk about salary disparity between the sexes. And they speak in broad and general terms.

You want to talk about individual cases where an individual of one sex makes a better salary than the other sex, I would be happy to talk about the other differences as well. Like education, experience, sick days taken, etc.
wow, just wow.

i make a specific reference to the lilly leadbetter fair pay act, i even give you a specific example explaining what it does, and you run away like child scared of a bumblebee.

this is not about gloria steinem, this is not about "broad and general terms"...this is about, as you called it, "obama's destructive agenda".

how is it that giving a woman who has suffered pay discrimination a better chance at seeking justice even remotely definable as "destructive"?

are all women so uneducated, inexperienced, and prone to illness that they deserve to be paid, on average, 4/5 of what a man earns for the exact same job?

this is not "high minded condescension", i do not even know where you get that. this is me nailing your ass to the wall on why the lilly leadbetter fair pay act is destructive. just tell me why, quit trying to redefine the question or branch off into distant generalizations. tell me why this legislation, part of obama's agenda, is destructive.


To you, perhaps.
you are correct. goebbels was the one who pioneered the phenomenon of making something so by simply asserting it. so like goebells, you prescribe to the theory that by asserting a falsehood often enough, you can make it so. way to be!

going back to the original point again, please tell me why not allowing insurers to drop you once you get sick, part of obama's agenda, is destructive. quit trying to redefine it as me being someone who believes the non-affluent deserve everything for free and tell me why requiring insurers to not drop lifetime payers once they get sick is a bad or destructive thing.


You sure have a funny way of expressing that love.
i'm not sure what you mean. like i said, the profit motive, ie the motivation to earn a profit, is what allows me to pay my rent and bills.

I agree. But McCain was the alternative, was he not?
you agree that obama was better than the alternative? well hell, johnny! let's quit all this fussin' and feudin'.

yes, mccain was on the ticket....but i seem to remember a winking pander on his ticket.

And the health insurance industry is among the lowest in terms of profit rate. But I am sure you don't concern yourself with things such as that. Gross profit and net profit are all you concern yourself with I am sure.
i don't concern myself with any of those things. i concern myself with the behavior of the industry that is in charge of insuring our health. like i said, it is not like a netflix subscription, it is MY HEALTH.

if they are going to suddenly find a pre existing condition that allows them to drop you once you get sick (a documented practice) in order to earn that profit, that is my concern. and if that means a system like germany where health insurers are mandatory non profits (yet still compete fiercely), so be it.

making health insurers behave ethically - how is that destructive?

I already explained which actions to which I was referring.

I find the firing of Juan Williams contemptible.

And I did not say Brack is a Muslim. I said he was born a Muslim.

There is a difference.

As to why you are a Jew, who knows? If you were baptized then you were not born a christian. Christianity does not work that way. You could have converted, as Brack did when he became a Christian. Or your mother could be Jewish. Judaism is matrilineal. The woman is the vessel.

You can look that up, too.
too? i already told you i didn't need to look up your first point, making the 'too' unnecessary. besides, i knew that as well.

juan williams was going to be fired by npr anyway, he had several instances where he allowed his opinion to overtake his reporting. npr holds themselves to a higher standard with respect to not inserting opinion.

i bet you get all scared and shit when you see a muslim on an airplane though.

at least you understand that religion is not decided by birthright. still not sure why you felt the need to point out the religion of obama's father and that it is patrilineal...

check that. i know exactly why you would do that...
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
So much obfuscation, I scarcely know where to begin.

Fuck that, sure I do:

please accept my apologies in responding. had some final moving duties and some trim work (gotta love harvest season).

wow, just wow.

i make a specific reference to the lilly leadbetter fair pay act, i even give you a specific example explaining what it does, and you run away like child scared of a bumblebee.

this is not about gloria steinem, this is not about "broad and general terms"...this is about, as you called it, "obama's destructive agenda".

how is it that giving a woman who has suffered pay discrimination a better chance at seeking justice even remotely definable as "destructive"?

are all women so uneducated, inexperienced, and prone to illness that they deserve to be paid, on average, 4/5 of what a man earns for the exact same job?

this is not "high minded condescension", i do not even know where you get that. this is me nailing your ass to the wall on why the lilly leadbetter fair pay act is destructive. just tell me why, quit trying to redefine the question or branch off into distant generalizations. tell me why this legislation, part of obama's agenda, is destructive.
When feminazis speak of pay disparity they do not talk of specific, individual cases. They refer to pay disparity between the sexes.

And as I said previously, if you want to discuss individual cases, I am happy to do so. Federal law prohibits discrimination based on sex.

But this Ledbetter case you insist on harping on is irrelevant. Statute of Limitations, if I recall.

you are correct. goebbels was the one who pioneered the phenomenon of making something so by simply asserting it. so like goebells, you prescribe to the theory that by asserting a falsehood often enough, you can make it so. way to be!
My only response to your Nazi-baiting is this quote:
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
going back to the original point again, please tell me why not allowing insurers to drop you once you get sick, part of obama's agenda, is destructive. quit trying to redefine it as me being someone who believes the non-affluent deserve everything for free and tell me why requiring insurers to not drop lifetime payers once they get sick is a bad or destructive thing.
And please tell me how skyrocketing Health Insurance premiums directly resulting from increased regulations make the situation better?

How does forcing citizens, I'm sorry - subjects, to pay for a service further the cause of liberty?

i'm not sure what you mean. like i said, the profit motive, ie the motivation to earn a profit, is what allows me to pay my rent and bills.
It's undesrtandable that something I say might go over your head.

It's this simple: You rail against elements of the free market while saying you love the profit motive.

you agree that obama was better than the alternative? well hell, johnny! let's quit all this fussin' and feudin'.

yes, mccain was on the ticket....but i seem to remember a winking pander on his ticket.
I didn't vote for McCain, either.

But your statement suggested the alternative was Palin when it was not. It was McCain.

i don't concern myself with any of those things. i concern myself with the behavior of the industry that is in charge of insuring our health. like i said, it is not like a netflix subscription, it is MY HEALTH.

if they are going to suddenly find a pre existing condition that allows them to drop you once you get sick (a documented practice) in order to earn that profit, that is my concern. and if that means a system like germany where health insurers are mandatory non profits (yet still compete fiercely), so be it.

making health insurers behave ethically - how is that destructive?
Forcing someone to pay for something they do not want. How is that ethical?

Or Constitutional?

too? i already told you i didn't need to look up your first point, making the 'too' unnecessary. besides, i knew that as well.

juan williams was going to be fired by npr anyway, he had several instances where he allowed his opinion to overtake his reporting. npr holds themselves to a higher standard with respect to not inserting opinion.

i bet you get all scared and shit when you see a muslim on an airplane though.

at least you understand that religion is not decided by birthright. still not sure why you felt the need to point out the religion of obama's father and that it is patrilineal...

check that. i know exactly why you would do that...
Williams was an analyst, not a reporter.

Nice try, but a big fat FAIL nonetheless.

If even if you were correct, why is Mara Liasson still employed at NPR?

:-|
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Islam is patrilineal. Daddy's a Muslim, so are you.

Judaism is matrilineal. Momma's a Jew, so are you.

Christianity is neither. It is affirmative.

Got it?
 

jeff f

New Member
please accept my apologies in responding. had some final moving duties and some trim work (gotta love harvest season).



wow, just wow.

i make a specific reference to the lilly leadbetter fair pay act, i even give you a specific example explaining what it does, and you run away like child scared of a bumblebee.

this is not about gloria steinem, this is not about "broad and general terms"...this is about, as you called it, "obama's destructive agenda".

how is it that giving a woman who has suffered pay discrimination a better chance at seeking justice even remotely definable as "destructive"?

are all women so uneducated, inexperienced, and prone to illness that they deserve to be paid, on average, 4/5 of what a man earns for the exact same job?

this is not "high minded condescension", i do not even know where you get that. this is me nailing your ass to the wall on why the lilly leadbetter fair pay act is destructive. just tell me why, quit trying to redefine the question or branch off into distant generalizations. tell me why this legislation, part of obama's agenda, is destructive.




you are correct. goebbels was the one who pioneered the phenomenon of making something so by simply asserting it. so like goebells, you prescribe to the theory that by asserting a falsehood often enough, you can make it so. way to be!

going back to the original point again, please tell me why not allowing insurers to drop you once you get sick, part of obama's agenda, is destructive. quit trying to redefine it as me being someone who believes the non-affluent deserve everything for free and tell me why requiring insurers to not drop lifetime payers once they get sick is a bad or destructive thing.




i'm not sure what you mean. like i said, the profit motive, ie the motivation to earn a profit, is what allows me to pay my rent and bills.



you agree that obama was better than the alternative? well hell, johnny! let's quit all this fussin' and feudin'.

yes, mccain was on the ticket....but i seem to remember a winking pander on his ticket.



i don't concern myself with any of those things. i concern myself with the behavior of the industry that is in charge of insuring our health. like i said, it is not like a netflix subscription, it is MY HEALTH.

if they are going to suddenly find a pre existing condition that allows them to drop you once you get sick (a documented practice) in order to earn that profit, that is my concern. and if that means a system like germany where health insurers are mandatory non profits (yet still compete fiercely), so be it.

making health insurers behave ethically - how is that destructive?



too? i already told you i didn't need to look up your first point, making the 'too' unnecessary. besides, i knew that as well.

juan williams was going to be fired by npr anyway, he had several instances where he allowed his opinion to overtake his reporting. npr holds themselves to a higher standard with respect to not inserting opinion.

i bet you get all scared and shit when you see a muslim on an airplane though.

at least you understand that religion is not decided by birthright. still not sure why you felt the need to point out the religion of obama's father and that it is patrilineal...

check that. i know exactly why you would do that...
wonderful retort, but you lost me when you spelled goebbels wrong. all meaning was lost and i had no idea of what you were trying to get across. a guy once taught me that.....do i sound as assinine as that otther guy who constantly checks grammar and spelling?
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Racist? LOL!
Credibility FAIL.
Yes racist. Very much so.

Questioning Obama's citizenship, claiming he is a Kenyan, claims that he isn't a Christian, claims that he is a secret Muslim. All these things are designed to do one thing, play on right wing Americans racial fears. No reasonable person thinks Obama is a secret Muslim or demand he produces his birth certificate.

There is a huge racial undertone to the opposition of Obama. Just look at tea party rallies and it is very clear.










Ask any of those people if they are racist and they'll say no. But just because it's in fashion to deny racism publicly doesn't mean they aren't racists.
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
Obstructionist?
How can that be when the Democrats had the majority in both Houses of Congress and held the White House all this time?
As a group they all voted against every major policy he tried to enact regardless of how much he compromised and gave them what they wanted.

In a time of desperate economic need the republicans voted against the biggest tax cut in American history. Either they had a sudden and temporary change of heart when it came to their support of tax cuts, or they tried to obstruct hoping America would fail to regain power. It had nothing to do with policy, everything to do with regaining power.

Also it sounds catchy when some Faux News pundit says "Who can we obstruct? They control congress!". But that is largely bullshit. The democrats only had the majority when you count the blue dog democrats. These "democrats" were almost all conservatives, some more conservative then republicans. They called themselves democrats but voted with the republicans more than they did democrats.

So to say the democrats had control of congress is false. They didn't have a majority when you took away the democrats who were actually conservatives.

The economy already has gone bust.
Under Bush, not Obama. The economy has been improving since Obama took office.

GOP greed pales in comparison to Democrat greed... for the taxpayer's money.
No. They both want to spend the same money. The difference is democrats want to take the money and spend it in ways that benefit society as a whole while the republicans want to take that money and give it to billionaires.

If vote republican and you're not in the top tax bracket then you're voting against your own interests.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
When feminazis speak of pay disparity...
obfuscation, thy name is johnnyo.

since we are not talking about feminazis (or other dishonest hyperbolic emotional appeal labels), let's fast forward to actually talking about the lilly ledbetter fair pay act

this Ledbetter case you insist on harping on is irrelevant. Statute of Limitations, if I recall.
what is irrelevant is the statute of limitations crap you keep trying to pull. this act DOES NOT change the 180 day statute of limitations. so get off it.

what this act actually does is start the 180 day statute of limitations from the last discriminatory paycheck, not the first one.

since this was all about my picking on your language of "obama's destructive agenda", please tell me how this is so destructive.

if you had a daughter who found out she was being paid lower than her male counterparts at the same job despite equal performance, what would you tell her? that it was her fault for not noticing it right away?

that is a sad position to take if you want to take it. but that it was the ledbetter fair pay act does.

My only response to your Nazi-baiting is this quote
good huxley quote. too bad what you are referring to is your opinion, not any fact :)

And please tell me how skyrocketing Health Insurance premiums directly resulting from increased regulations make the situation better?

How does forcing citizens, I'm sorry - subjects, to pay for a service further the cause of liberty?
in response to the first question: hehe, nice try. did you not notice your rates triple over the last 10 years? they would have done the same damn thing anyway, but now they can't drop you once you get sick.

in response to the second question: simple economics - to prevent free riders. every nation with lower health care costs than us does it.

It's understandable that something I say might go over your head.

It's this simple: You rail against elements of the free market while saying you love the profit motive.
ahh, the free market. newest buzzword yet. we'll be hearing this pour out of the mouths of more than a few tea partiers over the coming months and years.

i'm sure you can understand that a free market can still exist despite regulations, even strict ones. they are not mutually exclusive. you know this.

Forcing someone to pay for something they do not want. How is that ethical?

Or Constitutional?
in response to the second question: commerce clause. regulation of an economic activity.

first question: no one is forcing you to do anything. as i like to say, you may forgo the costs of society if you are willing to forgo the benefits.

i hear the amish don't pay into SS and may be exempt from the mandate. you can still be american and forgo the mandate, but you have to give up electricity.

and scantily clad women. women with vaginas.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Islam is patrilineal. Daddy's a Muslim, so are you.

Judaism is matrilineal. Momma's a Jew, so are you.

Christianity is neither. It is affirmative.

Got it?
so a man is getting ready to take a shower and hears a knock out the door. he opens the door and it is a snail selling magazine subscriptions.

the man is furious that the snail would disturb him at home and kicks the snail as hard as he can.

two years later, the man gets a knock on the door. he opens the door and it is a snail.

and the snail says "what the fuck was that all about?!?"
 

Dan Kone

Well-Known Member
And please tell me how skyrocketing Health Insurance premiums directly resulting from increased regulations make the situation better?
If you opposed the original health care plan with the public option that would have allowed for massive collective bargaining for insurance, then you don't get to complain about health care prices.

The conservatives objection to allowing people to have a cheaper public option is the reason you will continue to pay too much for bad health insurance. Congrats you "won" the battle against affordable health care. Good job.

How does forcing citizens, I'm sorry - subjects, to pay for a service further the cause of liberty?
It was necessary to do this so insurance companies could not refuse to cover people for pre-existing conditions. With out doing that people would abuse health insurance companies by only signing up for insurance after they get sick.

Now tell me, how does letting people die because they were dropped from their health insurance company because it was no longer profitable to cover them or letting people die because they can't afford the most expensive health insurance system in the world make this a better country?
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
Yes racist. Very much so.

Questioning Obama's citizenship, claiming he is a Kenyan, claims that he isn't a Christian, claims that he is a secret Muslim. All these things are designed to do one thing, play on right wing Americans racial fears. No reasonable person thinks Obama is a secret Muslim or demand he produces his birth certificate.

There is a huge racial undertone to the opposition of Obama. Just look at tea party rallies and it is very clear.

Ask any of those people if they are racist and they'll say no. But just because it's in fashion to deny racism publicly doesn't mean they aren't racists.
Those signs are no more offensive some of the gems from the Bush years.

By the way, Bush was compared to a monkey, too. Actually, I believe it was a chimp, but you see my point.

And a shocking amount of political propaganda out there targeting female Conservatives could be interpreted as misogyny.

Treating someone differently based on the color of his skin is racism.

Imagine the furor from the sycophantic Left had any leading Republican used the word enemy in reference to Democrats.

Imagine if Bush had said it, or the evil overlord Cheney.

Now you may respond that the enemy crack was an isolated incident and Obama later said it was poor choice of words.

While it is true that he later stated that using that word was ill advised, it is not an isolated incident. In his book he called the private sector enemy territory.

Obama perceives people like me as the enemy and Democrats seem perfectly fine with that, yet those same people will recoil in indignant horror when I say his agenda is destructive.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
If you opposed the original health care plan with the public option that would have allowed for massive collective bargaining for insurance, then you don't get to complain about health care prices.

The conservatives objection to allowing people to have a cheaper public option is the reason you will continue to pay too much for bad health insurance. Congrats you "won" the battle against affordable health care. Good job.

It was necessary to do this so insurance companies could not refuse to cover people for pre-existing conditions. With out doing that people would abuse health insurance companies by only signing up for insurance after they get sick.

Now tell me, how does letting people die because they were dropped from their health insurance company because it was no longer profitable to cover them or letting people die because they can't afford the most expensive health insurance system in the world make this a better country?
The impetus behind the single payer public option was to drive private insurance providers out of the market. It ultimately would have killed an entire industry.

Probably not such a bad thing if you believe health insurance is a right.

Oh, and one more thing.

You don't get to dictate to me what I choose to complain about.
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
As a group they all voted against every major policy he tried to enact regardless of how much he compromised and gave them what they wanted.

In a time of desperate economic need the republicans voted against the biggest tax cut in American history. Either they had a sudden and temporary change of heart when it came to their support of tax cuts, or they tried to obstruct hoping America would fail to regain power. It had nothing to do with policy, everything to do with regaining power.

Also it sounds catchy when some Faux News pundit says "Who can we obstruct? They control congress!". But that is largely bullshit. The democrats only had the majority when you count the blue dog democrats. These "democrats" were almost all conservatives, some more conservative then republicans. They called themselves democrats but voted with the republicans more than they did democrats.

So to say the democrats had control of congress is false. They didn't have a majority when you took away the democrats who were actually conservatives.

Under Bush, not Obama. The economy has been improving since Obama took office.

No. They both want to spend the same money. The difference is democrats want to take the money and spend it in ways that benefit society as a whole while the republicans want to take that money and give it to billionaires.

If vote republican and you're not in the top tax bracket then you're voting against your own interests.
The idea that Obama was willing to make compromises is a Liberal fantasy.

He misinterpreted his mandate and chose to ignore the will of the American people and focus on his agenda to mold the U.S. into a European-style Social-Welfare state rather than the actual crisis - the economy.

The result was a lurch to the Left in spite of the opposition. Opposition not from Republican elected officials - they were powerless. The opposition came from the heartland.

Obama was elected on the promise he would solve the economic crisis, not to complain endlessly that he inherited it.

And saying that Democrats really didn't have control of Congress over the last four years is a risible argument. They had control and they fucked it up.

Deal with it.

Over the last 20 months or so, Democrats have had control over Congress and the White House.

And you won't have to worry about those pesky blue dogs much longer, over half of them were put to sleep. The rest have been neutered.

The recent election was a rebuke of Democratic control.

Think of it as a restraining order.
 

stonyt

Well-Known Member
Obama is a puppet? he is far from a puppet bro... do you have any kind of education? because i don't argue with laymen- they drag you down to their level then beat you with experience. i find it ironic you calling someone a puppet, when "puppet" was a label for Obama initiated by the right in a desperate and blind shot attempt to cripple his overwhelming potential. in fact i'm willing to bet you have no clue as to why you are calling him a puppet(go look it up now and pretend you knew all along.) you are merely regurgitating slogans implanted into your rederrick by the right; that being said, ask yourself- whose the puppet? the most dangerous thing to be in washington is an honest man. i wonder why they hate him so much? hmmmm.....
rederrick? WTF? And you are calling someone out on his or her education?
 

doc111

Well-Known Member
rederrick? WTF? And you are calling someone out on his or her education?
I have no clue wtf he's talking about either but he'll probably just come back on here calling us "uneducated" or something along those lines!:roll:
 

Johnnyorganic

Well-Known Member
To state that the Teabaggers are racist is to say that all political movements are racist.

More than a couple Democrats voted for Obama only because he is black. And more than a couple of Democrats voted for McCain because Obama is black.

I know a few. People who have never voted for a Republican, voted for McCain in the last Presidential election. It does not take a Ph. D. in Political Science to figure that one out.

And a few offensive signs at a rally prove nothing.

Even if a sign was held saying something really offensive like "Lynch Sambo," all it would prove is that someone attended a rally carrying a sign. Infiltrators attend rallies, you know.

An anti-Teabagger group was recently discredited because the leader of the group worked on political activities on government computer equipment while he was being paid to teach students in a public school.

And MoveOn.org encourages members to attend opposition rallies for the sole purpose of agitating. The group urges its members to instigate incidents and record them.
 
Top