T1B

I saw about 2 minutes of Nancy Pelosi and her smirking, but I had to go to a meeting. Anyone see Obama's speech? Cliff notes? I want the truth only.

There are numerous sites where you can watch it. Why not get off your lazy butt and form your own opinions on what he said.

trev wrote:I saw about 2 minutes of Nancy Pelosi and her smirking, but I had to go to a meeting. Anyone see Obama's speech? Cliff notes? I want the truth only.

You want the truth? We have a board filled with racist inbreds and you're asking these rejects for the truth???

Good luck with that dude!!

Here's the condensed version:

1. Obama has a health care plan.
2. He said it will cost around 900 billion.
3. He said it could be paid for by eliminating "waste and abuse" from the current system.
4. He was not specific.

5. No mention what the "waste and abuse" is; or why it has been left alone until it pays for his new health care plan.

Truth: Obama has some great speechwriters...huge upgrade over Dubyah.
Truth: Obama is capable of great speechmaking......huge upgrade over Dubyah.
Truth: shouting crap to the POTUS is a poor idea. The preferred method of calling bullshit mid-speech is shoe-flinging. It would be interesting to see if Obama is in Dubyah's league when it comes to ducking.

PSUFAN wrote:Truth: Obama has some great speechwriters...huge upgrade over Dubyah.

Don't agree and here's why:
"But by avoiding some of the overhead that gets eaten up at private companies by profits, excessive administrative costs and executive salaries, it could provide a good deal for consumers."
"It would also keep pressure on private insurers to keep their policies affordable and treat their customers better, the same way public colleges and universities provide additional choice and competition to students without in any way inhibiting a vibrant system of private colleges and universities."
"First, I will not sign a plan that adds one dime to our deficits — either now or in the future."
"I am not the first President to take up this cause, but I am determined to be the last."

Good speechwriters don't let this stuff slip through. Not to mention that Obama relied on strawman arguments such as that his opponents are resistant to all reform and advocate doing nothing.

Truth: Obama is capable of great speechmaking......huge upgrade over Dubyah.

You mean he can speak well. I guess that's an advantage. But what if what you're actually saying doesn't comport to reality? Is that really then great speechmaking?

Truth: shouting crap to the POTUS is a poor idea. The preferred method of calling bullshit mid-speech is shoe-flinging. It would be interesting to see if Obama is in Dubyah's league when it comes to ducking.

Yep, poor form. Obama is indeed lying on the issue that prompted Wilson to shout out, but that's not proper behavior for a member of Congress and was disrespectful of the President and the event.

DallasFanatic wrote:There are numerous sites where you can watch it. Why not get off your lazy butt and form your own opinions on what he said.

Not all of us are closed-minded jerk-offs. Some of us like to hear all sides.

Oh, by the way, I will be back later to see what everyone has to say. I don't have time to sit and watch this thing today. You are free to tell me how sitting around watching this equates to getting off my lazy butt.

trev wrote: I want the truth only.

trev wrote: Some of us like to hear all sides.

I laughed.

Twice.

trev wrote:I saw about 2 minutes of Nancy Pelosi and her smirking, but I had to go to a meeting. Anyone see Obama's speech? Cliff notes? I want the truth only.

If you've seen one of Chairman Zero's speeches, you've fucking seen them all. You missed nothing

JMak wrote:Not to mention that Obama relied on strawman arguments such as that his opponents are resistant to all reform and advocate doing nothing.

Republicans controlled the House for all but the final Congressional term of Bush's Presidency. They controlled the Senate for more than half of Bush's Presidency. Going back further, Republicans controlled the House for all but the first Congressional term of Clinton's Presidency, and the Senate for all but the first Congressional term and the final seventeen days of Clinton's Presidency. With control of Congress for that long, you'd think that they at least would have tried to get something done during that time, particularly in light of the fact that a member of their own party controlled the White House for a significant portion of that time. Yet I don't recall health care reform ever being mentioned as a priority while Republicans controlled the majority in Congress, let alone any sigificant legislation in that regard even being proposed.

Further, Obama challenged his opponents to bring any ideas to the table that they think are better, and he pledged to listen to them. Sounds to me like it's put-up-or-shut-up time for Obama's opponents in that regard.

That D Bag Wilson owes the President a beer.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Republicans controlled the House for all but the final Congressional term of Bush's Presidency. They controlled the Senate for more than half of Bush's Presidency. Going back further, Republicans controlled the House for all but the first Congressional term of Clinton's Presidency, and the Senate for all but the first Congressional term and the final seventeen days of Clinton's Presidency. With control of Congress for that long, you'd think that they at least would have tried to get something done during that time, particularly in light of the fact that a member of their own party controlled the White House for a significant portion of that time. Yet I don't recall health care reform ever being mentioned as a priority while Republicans controlled the majority in Congress, let alone any sigificant legislation in that regard even being proposed.

That's a legit criticism of the Republicans pre-Obama. However, as you well know, Obama was not referring to Republican congressional inaction during the Bush43 or Clinton administrations. He has been and is clearly referring to the current debate. Now, that you knew this, yet, still ran with the criticism above to justify Obama's strawman argument, well, what should we conclude about you other than some level of disingenousness and/or dishonesty?

Further, Obama challenged his opponents to bring any ideas to the table that they think are better, and he pledged to listen to them. Sounds to me like it's put-up-or-shut-up time for Obama's opponents in that regard.

That would have come off as more legitimate if Obama was not pretending that opponents have presented nothing and are seeking just to bicker this thing to death. The fact is, that Republicans have introduced at least 40 different health care-related amendments during the last several months that the two bills in Congress have been moving.

Obama is lying when he says he's open to all serious proposals. He's been presented with them already yet dismisses them s mere partisan bickering and bad faith opposition.

Sorry, you got no where with your retort.

That D Bag Wilson owes the President a beer.
Wonder if the Dems that booed and hissed at then POTUS George W Bush during one of his State of the Union TV shows shared a brew with him ?

trev wrote:

DallasFanatic wrote:There are numerous sites where you can watch it. Why not get off your lazy butt and form your own opinions on what he said.

Not all of us are closed-minded jerk-offs. Some of us like to hear all sides.

Oh, by the way, I will be back later to see what everyone has to say. I don't have time to sit and watch this thing today. You are free to tell me how sitting around watching this equates to getting off my lazy butt.

translation: I have another damn AA meeting.

Screw_Michigan wrote:

trev wrote:closed-minded

It's narrow-minded, you mush-brained simplejerk.

Maybe she meant clothes-minded.

Wolfman wrote:That D Bag Wilson owes the President a beer.
Wonder if the Dems that booed and hissed at then POTUS George W Bush during one of his State of the Union TV shows shared a brew with him ?

Sure they did- a little while after they drank it.

Terry in Crapchester wrote: Republicans controlled the House for all but the final Congressional term of Bush's Presidency. They controlled the Senate for more than half of Bush's Presidency. Going back further, Republicans controlled the House for all but the first Congressional term of Clinton's Presidency, and the Senate for all but the first Congressional term and the final seventeen days of Clinton's Presidency. With control of Congress for that long, you'd think that they at least would have tried to get something done during that time, particularly in light of the fact that a member of their own party controlled the White House for a significant portion of that time. Yet I don't recall health care reform ever being mentioned as a priority while Republicans controlled the majority in Congress, let alone any sigificant legislation in that regard even being proposed.

So the GOP controlled all of congress for 7 years under Clinton and not quite 6 under Bush. Initially, they didn't quite know how to act like they were in the majority and let the DemocRats throw up all kinds of roadblocks (which were pretty much regulated away when the DemocRats regained control in 06) Clinton had to be dragged kicking & screaming into agreeing to welfare reform AND working toward a balanced budget. Welfare reform alone took three tries. I give Clinton very little credit for the theoretical balanced budget achieved briefly in 1999 because the president can only spend what congress says he can spend.

If health care reform was never one of the GOP's priorities, all I can say is great! It shouldn't have been! At least some of them were not so corrupt as to think it should have been a priority, or that the federal government should have any more involvement that it already had. They were fuck-ups, but they weren't TOTAL fuck-ups like the current gaggle of assholes running congress.

Since Reagan, certainly, GOP has opposed all reform of health care in this country--as well as all reform of the insurance industry, financial markets, environmental laws, campaign finance reform, and military spending. In fact they have to very best of their collective ability sought to undermine any such reform, and under the banner of "deregulation" they succeeded in fucking up the entire world economy.

How dare a simpering weasel like Weasel dare to suggest "bad faith" when talking about the most incompetent and philosophically bankrupt political party in U.S. history. Name anything the GOP has proposed or promoted that has had any beneficial effect or even nominal success. What?

As for the Lebron of public speaking, he did his thing--and dealt with the yahoo S.Carolina congressman with dignity and aplomb. And really it's not like the days of John C.Calhoun or anything. For that matter, look how America has fallen behind in the "hands on" school of legislative politiking..


these guys do it right!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qZ-hNVfTZqw

And these guys ain't playin' nice (pssst...you can get a Ukranian hooker on this one)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cD0XZlxK ... ature=fvwp

The White House best sums up Obama's blathering:

“His speech was very specific and, as promised, answered the big questions about how we should proceed on providing a secure and stable health system for all Americans,” White House spokesman Dan Pfeiffer said. “Many of the details will be worked out in the legislative process.”

Very specific, but many of the details will be worked out in the legislative process.

That's all you really need to know about this duplicitous administration. They tell you they are being specific and in the next breath confirm what you were already thinking...they're lying.

Bob Wilson should have stuck to his guns. Uncivil or not, calling a spade a spade was the right thing to do.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Since Reagan, certainly, GOP has opposed all reform of health care in this country--as well as all reform of the insurance industry, financial markets, environmental laws, campaign finance reform, and military spending. In fact they have to very best of their collective ability sought to undermine any such reform, and under the banner of "deregulation" they succeeded in fucking up the entire world economy.

More regulations were added to the Federal Register under Bush than under Clinton- who held the previous all-time record for regulating.

Sure, prick, whatever you say.

Here, suck on this...As the disgraced Chimp crawled from his (unelected) office..

The White House is working to enact a wide array of federal regulations, many of which would weaken government rules aimed at protecting consumers and the environment, before President Bush leaves office in January.

The new rules would be among the most controversial deregulatory steps of the Bush era and could be difficult for his successor to undo. Some would ease or lift constraints on private industry, including power plants, mines and farms.

Those and other regulations would help clear obstacles to some commercial ocean-fishing activities, ease controls on emissions of pollutants that contribute to global warming, relax drinking-water standards and lift a key restriction on mountaintop coal mining.

Once such rules take effect, they typically can be undone only through a laborious new regulatory proceeding, including lengthy periods of public comment, drafting and mandated reanalysis.

But here's to the point of deregulation being the essence of GOP philosophy, etc...

As Paulson laid out his prognosis for America’s mortgage crisis and last week’s disaster on Wall Street, he tossed aside the dogmatic, decades-long conservative tradition of promoting market deregulation:

”This latest episode has highlighted that the world has changed as has the role of other nonbank financial institutions and the interconnectedness among all financial institutions,” Paulson said. ”These changes require us all to think more broadly about the regulatory and supervisory framework that is consistent with the promotion and maintenance of financial stability,” he added.

Paulson tossed all that shit aside years ago


please say you knew

trev wrote:

DallasFanatic wrote:There are numerous sites where you can watch it. Why not get off your lazy butt and form your own opinions on what he said.

Not all of us are closed-minded jerk-offs. Some of us like to hear all sides.

Oh, by the way, I will be back later to see what everyone has to say. I don't have time to sit and watch this thing today. You are free to tell me how sitting around watching this equates to getting off my lazy butt.

I was saying for you to mentally get off your butt and form your own opinion and put it out there, instead of soliciting the opinions of others in hopes of having an intelligent take of your own. Think trev, watch and think how this speech affects you, and your values and come up with something of your own. You can't sit back and do shots of vodka all night and then ask everyone for insight that you can take with you in hopes of sounding educated to the rest of your bar rat friends.

He's a fookin lier. That is all.

Jerkovich wrote:He's a fookin lier. That is all.

What he said

[quote="Terry in Crapchester]
Republicans controlled the House for all but the final Congressional term of Bush's Presidency. They controlled the Senate for more than half of Bush's Presidency. Going back further, Republicans controlled the House for all but the first Congressional term of Clinton's Presidency, and the Senate for all but the first Congressional term and the final seventeen days of Clinton's Presidency. With control of Congress for that long, you'd think that they at least would have tried to get something done during that time, particularly in light of the fact that a member of their own party controlled the White House for a significant portion of that time. Yet I don't recall health care reform ever being mentioned as a priority while Republicans controlled the majority in Congress, let alone any sigificant legislation in that regard even being proposed.
[/quote]

Just cause you don't recall it, don't mean it didn't happen.

During bubba's run, congress did pass health insurance portability laws. It was a good start.

Now we need them to go after tort reform, first and foremost. I also think that our regulatory bullshit forces all kinds of shit to require doctor attention. There is plenty of routine bs that can be handled by lesser qualified medical folks. I would also make non narcotic medicines available directly from licensed pharmacists.

These fukkers have some pretty good training. Let them use it.

Cuda wrote:

Wonder what the guy on the right had to say about dissent when Bush was President. Btw, whoever painted the Hitler mustache on Bush got the mustache wrong.

Terry in Crapchester wrote:Wonder what the guy on the right had to say about dissent when Bush was President. Btw, whoever painted the Hitler mustache on Bush got the mustache wrong.

Are we playing spot the fallacy today?

Terry in Crapchester wrote:
Wonder what the guy on the right had to say about dissent when Bush was President. Btw, whoever painted the Hitler mustache on Bush got the mustache wrong.

It makes no fucking difference what he said either way.