The Last Stand, Until The Last Stand
So we’re down to just a few hours now. In spite of yet another promise broken in the process, that lady with all the Botox has scheduled the vote for tomorrow.
I’m reminded of a great phrase from out West here: A Dios rogando, y con el mazo dando. It roughly translates to: Praise the Lord, and pass the gunpowder, and more idiomaitcally it means that God helps those who help themselves.
If tomorrow our House of Representatives passes the Stalinization of Health Care Act of 2010, it’ll be up to us to take action. It will be up to us to decide if we choose to allow the criminals who vote in support of this unonstitutional and destructive legislation to continue as our employees or to remove them.
The time for Hope will be over. The time for Action will have come. As of tomorrow, there are 227 days till November 2, 2010.
-Nick (ColoradoPatriot, from TML)
40 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Tell me the action you want. I’m gunning for the criminals!
Comment by Seane-Anna — March 21, 2010 @ 1:04 am - March 21, 2010
I they manage to pass it, it will take an enormous amount of work to ever repeal it. It may not be possible. But we will do whatever amount of work it takes. But on the bright side, states and other entities are already lining up to sue over the many unconstitutional elements to this Fascist bill.
One way or another this bill will be undone or the country will be. The wealth producers will not be enslaved to the welfare recipients no matter how hard Democrats try to make it so.
Comment by American Elephant — March 21, 2010 @ 2:47 am - March 21, 2010
This BIll needs to die and I pray that there will be just enough people who will step forward and say Nay no matter what promises were made to them.
Comment by Letschecark — March 21, 2010 @ 6:04 am - March 21, 2010
Well it’s good to see you’re not getting overly dramatic about it!
Comment by Levi — March 21, 2010 @ 8:02 am - March 21, 2010
A democratically-elected majority in the senate and house is going to vote in a strictly up or down fashion on a bill that has been working its way through the machinery of our legislature for months. Yes, indeed, let’s ignite the mobs and all get in a panic.
If the republicans lose, it’s their fault. Frankly, I’m getting tired of the whining and the hyperbole. If you had better candidates, and had run better campaigns, you’d still have the senate, the house, and the presidency. When Bush was president, and both houses of congress were in republican hands, he rammed through as much legislation as the pages could carry, as was his right. All this crap about “gunpowder” and “gunning for the criminals” is irresponsible and childish.
I know enough American history to realize that passions have been this inflamed many times before; still, it’s dispiriting to see these reactions here. If the republicans had long ago climbed out of bed with the insurance lobby and helped to pass some of the common-sense provisions of this bill (such as killing pre-existing condition coverage prohibitions), we would not be in this situation today.
I come to this site in the hope of reading a measured counterargument to the positions on the left, and I am so often disappointed.
Comment by Phil Holmes — March 21, 2010 @ 8:59 am - March 21, 2010
“I come to this site in the hope of reading a measured counterargument to the positions on the left, and I am so often disappointed.”
That is because there is no measured counterpoints. Just hate.
They called a man who was beaten by a white mob during 1961 the n-word. They spat on him.
They called Barney Frank a faggot.
Paul, the American conservative has one weapon, hate.
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/03/tea-partiers-call-lewis-nr-frank-ft-at-capitol-hill-protest.php?ref=mp
Comment by gillie — March 21, 2010 @ 9:26 am - March 21, 2010
This bill is designed to instill social conflict. Every single worker contributes to social security and medicare. That makes them seem equitable, and helps explain why a country founded on freedom would tolerate them.
This bill does absoltely nothing that is equitable. It is funded entirely by redistributing from one class of people to another. 50% of it is funded with Medicare rationing. People who have paid into medicare the past 45 years are now going to see benefits cut so that the money saved from them can be redistributed to someone else. How is that fair and equitable? The other 50% is funded by confiscating money from the most productive members of society.
The beneficiaries have of this plan have no skin in the game, which as noted is a gigantic departure from how social security and medicare are funded. I don’t think it is hyperbole to say this is the crown jewel of socialism, with a strong element of facism. The government will force you to buy insurance that they deem is appropriate. And if you don’t buy it, you are penalized. Is there any other example where you are penalized for NOT engaging in economic actitivty?
This bill is terribly flawed and guaranteed to create social conflict. Anybody who thinks the fight is over just because the socialists in Congress pass this thing are mistaken.
Comment by Scott — March 21, 2010 @ 9:53 am - March 21, 2010
Oh, ….. my, ….. gosh ! Read this!
Phil, did you fail to notice that the Democrats have had a super majority since January 20, 2009? This bill has had nothing whatsoever in any way whatsoever with Republicans.
The opposition to this bill has been bi-partisan and Obama, Reid and Pelosi have worked like fiends to snuff out Democrat bi-partisanship which kept the bill from passing.
Oh, ….. my, ….. gosh ! Read this!
Phil, why don’t you lead off? Show us the measured arguments of the left resulting in health care reform which are the core of this bill.
Meanwhile, I am always disappointed by people like you who just snipe, snark and run away.
Comment by heliotrope — March 21, 2010 @ 10:11 am - March 21, 2010
gillie,
If a bad apple or two used the epithets you report, shame on them. (Hopefully you have video and confirmed sources, because it is a nasty charge, and it is the first resort of a sore loser.)
But, gillie, you morphed this alleged misdemeanor into this stink bomb:
Nice work, gillie, you don’t even bat an eye at smearing most Amercians.
p.s., gillie, how quaint that the link you provide is “tpmdc.talking points memo” …… you are good little party parrot. Have a cracker on me.
Comment by heliotrope — March 21, 2010 @ 10:21 am - March 21, 2010
Oh, listen to the little gillie try to act all uptight, when liberal gays like gillie are all in favor of hurling epithets at black people.
Now, gillie, play by your own rules. You stated that one alleged instance means everyone who belongs to that group is a racist. Thus, this one proven instance demonstrates that liberals like yourself are completely and totally racist and that your only weapon is hate.
Meanwhile, we should remember that this is the same lying and worthless John Lewis who tried to claim that John McCain supported church bombings and racial killings. He thinks his skin color allows him to lie at will. He’s the purest example of the racism and racist beliefs endemic in the Obama Party, where your character doesn’t matter as long as your skin is black and you can commit whatever crime or hateful action you want. Just look at Charles Rangel and Monica Conyers.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2010 @ 11:21 am - March 21, 2010
I come to this site in the hope of reading a measured counterargument to the positions on the left, and I am so often disappointed.
That’s because, Phil, as a welfare leftist who doesn’t hold a job and doesn’t pay taxes, you can’t see the downside of this bill. All you see is that someone else will be paying another one of your bills for you.
Those of us who grew past childhood see clearly what this bill is — like Scott put it, it is redistributing income from those who earn it to those who don’t on a massive scale and breaking promises of benefits for which people paid in their entire lives so that Obama can protect an entire lazy underclass of welfare addicts like yourself who will vote for nothing other than raising their check amounts.
Tell us, Phil, do you know what happens when you massively increase expenses to businesses? Are you even aware of what happens when purchasing power is drained off by mandate and forced to be spent on things other than what people want? Or do you not care because you, like Obama, have never run a business, never held a job, and never been in a situation where someone wasn’t paying your bills for you based on your skin color?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2010 @ 11:26 am - March 21, 2010
I did not snipe – I left a posting. I’m not sure what “snarking” is, so I’ll pass on that one. I did not run away – my partner and I walked 5 miles through some beautiful old northside Richmond neighborhoods because it’s such a wonderful almost-spring day. And here I am back again.
All I said was, if the bill passes on a true “up or down” fashion, then the opposing party will have lost – and it will have lost because, in effect, it lost the opposing argument. You’d expect me to say the same thing if the bill does not pass. Language like “pass the gunpowder” and “I’m gunning for the criminals” are at best childish in a situation like this one. The opposing party has done nothing wrong. They won more seats in the congress, they won the presidency, they wrote a bill, it went through the convoluted legislative process (which is convoluted by design and evolution and not because of the current democratic officeholders), and it appears to be on the verge of passing (though of course it might not, because it’s very close).
That IS the system. There are no criminals here. Such talk is silly and needlessly dangerous, and reflects a childish inability to accept that you have lost the argument, and a petulant unwillingness to look closely at the situation and understand WHY you have lost it.
I hate extremists on both sides. They create the conditions that excuse their own unreasonableness. You want to change things? Make a better argument. It’s not my intention either to praise or condemn the health care bill. I’m just condemning the language being used at this site.
Comment by Phil Holmes — March 21, 2010 @ 11:30 am - March 21, 2010
And Phil Holmes, your game is well known here. Like heliotrope said, you just snipe, snark, and run away.
And no, we wouldn’t expect you to say the same thing, because you’ve been given ample opportunity to condemn your Obama and your Obama Party for doing the same thing you allege of Republicans and have run away from it.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2010 @ 11:32 am - March 21, 2010
Translation: WAHHH! You mean conservatives and other freedom-lovers hold to your convictions, insteading of conceding my premises and making me feel right! WAHHHH!
Phil Holmes, let me make this clear: Obamacare is a government takeover of 1/6 of the economy. As such, it is fascism. Which makes you a supporter of / apologist for fascism. So SCREW. YOU. What you support, in this instance, is plain evil.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 21, 2010 @ 11:32 am - March 21, 2010
#10 NDT, your link is not germane. A minority can not smear a minority. What is said in the heat of passion when you are entirely in the right does not count. Those people asked to be called those names. It was a plant from Cheney/Halliburton that did that to wreck things. Who are you going to believe, me or your lying ears? What’s the point? The tapes were doctored. I can’t hear you! etc.
Comment by heliotrope — March 21, 2010 @ 11:35 am - March 21, 2010
#5: Phil, the Democrats are on the verge of passing legislation that will: add 30 million people to the US healthcare system as fully insured individuals regardless of their ability to pay into the system without a commensurate increase of doctors, nurses, medical facilities, and equipment; impose draconian mandates on insurance companies that require them to cover everyone, for every ailment or injury, at any time; create a crisis of bankrupt private insurers due to their inability to make a profit under such conditions (particularly after the “public option” has been enacted) necessitating a takeover of the entire healthcare system by the federal government; and lead to untold tax liability for the middle class and the rationing of healthcare services, leaving us with a system resembling that of Cuba (where 26 people in Havana’s largest mental hospital recently died from hypothermia during a cold snap due to neglect), the UK (where 20,000 cancer victims needlessly died because the rationing body of NHS rejected the approval of 10 drugs), and/or Canada (whose wealthy premiers have now taken to flying to the US for major heart surgery). They plan to pass the legislation despite the fact that the US is already facing TRILLIONS of dollars in unfunded liabilities under other entitlement programs, and until yesterday, they were planning to get the bill to Obama’s desk by completely disregarding the Constitution (the document, by the way, that is supposed to protect Americans from an overreaching, tyrannical government).
You obviously don’t think this is a problem, and that’s fine. You have every right to believe exactly what you have been told about the Democrats’ healthcare “reform” program. But conservatives have the right to believe that it is taking our country down the path to catastrophic ruin. This is an example of the most common response to these concerns:
“That is because there is no measured counterpoints. Just hate.
They called a man who was beaten by a white mob during 1961 the n-word. They spat on him. They called Barney Frank a faggot.
Paul, the American conservative has one weapon, hate.” (gillie, comment #6)
That’s it. According to the Left, our concerns are so completely illegitimate and unworthy of debate that the only reasonable conclusion is that our opposition is a pretext for racism and bigotry. Moreover, the Democrats have labeled the GOP the “party of no” and pretended that all of the proposals put forth by conservatives in this debate (that would actually make healthcare insurance more affordable for all Americans) don’t exist.
Consequently, you’re right—if the Democrats have the votes, they can pass the legislation. But that doesn’t mean it’s good for our country. In fact, it’s a total disaster and you’re just too poisoned by Obama talking points to see it. This bill will open the door further for Obama and his vile minions in Congress to legislate the stripping away of everything Americans have worked for so Pelosi and crew can whimsically redistribute it as they see fit—and you’re “getting tired of the whining and the hyperbole”???!!! Phil, GO FU*K YOURSELF.
Comment by Sean A — March 21, 2010 @ 11:58 am - March 21, 2010
“…Or do you not care because you, like Obama, have never run a business, never held a job, and never been in a situation where someone wasn’t paying your bills for you based on your skin color?”
What are you guys drinking so early in the morning? You have not the slightest clue who I am.
“… never held a job…” Please. There are more trust-fund babies playing around in this website – reclining on the riches earned by their parents and grandparents – pretending to know what work is – pretending that they have EVER had to worry about losing their jobs (if they even have jobs) or their health care – than you care to admit.
Comment by Phil Holmes — March 21, 2010 @ 12:10 pm - March 21, 2010
#12: “You want to change things? Make a better argument. It’s not my intention either to praise or condemn the health care bill. I’m just condemning the language being used at this site.”
Well that’s just perfect, Phil. You won’t state an opinion one way or the other regarding the healthcare bill AND you expect us to do the same because you’re tired of all the “whining” and “hyperbole”? Yeah, I recall being a little tired of all the whining and hyperbole from the anti-war dip-shits like you during the Bush years, but I certainly had my own opinions then and was willing to put them on the table and defend them. But don’t worry, there’s no need for you to “praise” or “condemn” the healthcare bill for us. We already know what your position is (on your knees with Obama’s balls in your mouth).
P.S. GO FU*K YOURSELF.
Comment by Sean A — March 21, 2010 @ 12:16 pm - March 21, 2010
Oh, the hilarity.
First Phil Holmes whines:
What are you guys drinking so early in the morning? You have not the slightest clue who I am.
Followed by:
There are more trust-fund babies playing around in this website – reclining on the riches earned by their parents and grandparents – pretending to know what work is
So Phil Holmes is whining about people who “have not the slightest clue who he is” — and then goes off and claims that all of us here are trust-fund babies.
The problem is that, as a welfare addict, Phil Holmes is still in denial over why he doesn’t have money. In the Obama Party, the only way that you have money is if you are an evil corporatist exploiter of the workers or their privileged and pampered offspring. There is exactly zero link in the Obama Party between work ethic, individual responsibility, and financial success; the latter is always due to corruption and privilege of birth.
The reason why is pretty straightforward. If work ethic and individual responsibility can result in financial success, than Phil’s failure to achieve is his OWN fault, not someone else’s. Phil, as a liberal, cannot handle the fact that other people might have worked harder or been more responsible than he is. He starts screaming about “equality” because he wants the rewards without the work, and starts whining that people like himself who don’t work and aren’t responsible should be able to take what they want from those who do.
That’s what this bill is all about, Phil — taking. It takes money from the people who earn it to give to the people who refuse to take responsibility, refuse to work, and refuse to put effort into success. Moochers like yourself who never gave one thin dime to “the poor” are now using “the poor” as an excuse for you to reach into our pockets and take what we’ve earned. Charles Rangel is the epitome of the Obama Party — he raises taxes on everyone else while refusing to pay his own and demands “rent control” for “the poor” so he can maintain four lavish apartments at cheap expense.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2010 @ 12:33 pm - March 21, 2010
So Phil Holmes is the liberal-pretending-not-to-be-liberal type of liberal. Again, Phil: SCREW. YOU. We see through your act. It is your fault, not ours, that we are insufficiently dumb to buy your act.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 21, 2010 @ 12:44 pm - March 21, 2010
Or… if I’m wrong… then you oppose Obamacare. Cut the B.S. and state plainly for the record, Phil, your direct opposition to Obamacare. (I expect that you can’t and won’t.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 21, 2010 @ 12:46 pm - March 21, 2010
As for trust fund babies: They tend to be Democrats. There’s a reason. It’s because they don’t have a clue how to work, get things done, create a business, or employ people. They don’t have a clue how money is earned (or made). The “old rich” gravitate instinctively to Big Government, because Big Government effectively blocks and/or loots the “new rich” for them.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 21, 2010 @ 12:53 pm - March 21, 2010
#21: “Or… if I’m wrong… then you oppose Obamacare. Cut the B.S. and state plainly for the record, Phil, your direct opposition to Obamacare.”
Lemme guess…the bill “is a good start,” but it “doesn’t go far enough” because “there’s no public option”?
I don’t know about you guys, but the next person I hear uttering that inane statement is getting a slap (the full-swing, open-handed, Mildred Pierce variety).
P.S. Also getting a slap: the next person who tells me that they’re “fiscally conservative” but “socially liberal.”
Comment by Sean A — March 21, 2010 @ 1:01 pm - March 21, 2010
I just love how everyone here is telling me who I am and what I think – note from the very first in this thread there were people here telling me that I had never worked a day in my life, that I was a welfare addict – people who had never seen me, had never met me, had never talked to me. I give you all a dose of the same medicine, and out comes the vitriole.
My initial post was not about whether the bill should or should not pass. My post was about the whiny and hyperbolic language on this site and other similar sites about the passage of the bill. My post decried the “grad your gunpowder” and “hang the criminals” comments that overlooked the fact that the bill went through the same channels, in the same ways, that many republican-initiated bills have gone through, and that instead of acting like half-assed minutemen, you might more profitably examine why you lost (if indeed the bill does pass – it’s too close to call) and work harder to win elections.
You want an opinion on the health care reform bill? Here it is. I think it is a messy and ungainly necessity. Could it have been better? Yes. Was it put together too quickly? Probably so. Are there pieces in it that are necessary? Yes. If I were a congressman, would I vote for it? Well, I’m not a congressman, and I have not read the bill, nor do I have a paid staff to read it and summarize it for me. Knowing what I know now, yes I would vote for it. It contains provisions that overturn historic problems with health care, such as pre-existing conditions coverage prohibitions.
If the republicans had backed some of the common sense pieces of the health care bill – such as overturning pre-existing health care provisions – then we would not be in this place. You let the anger and hard feelings grow to the point where this kind of legislation is possible.
You keep forgetting that people are in trouble in this economy. People have lost jobs through no fault of their own. They are scared because they don’t have health insurance. That creates a powerful political force, and you ignored it.
Comment by Phil Holmes — March 21, 2010 @ 1:04 pm - March 21, 2010
I love it. Phil Holmes whines about people losing jobs whil supporting a bill that business leaders have already pointed out will massively increase expenses, depress hiring, and accelerate layoffs as businesses cope with the huge tax increases.
Then again, for people who don’t like private industry and want a vast influx of people dependent on welfare, that is a feature, not a bug.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2010 @ 1:43 pm - March 21, 2010
I pledge to play like the Democrats in all my future voting decisions. I will listen to both sides – maybe even acknowledge some good points on the left side – but always vote for the republican/conservative. No exceptions. Their time in the sandbox is over and I will do everything to make sure they have no control again. I will also not stay silent with others and allow them to dominate conversations with leftist dogma. I will make them as uncomfortable as they have made me feel all these years as I have bit my tongue and let them rant. In my field of higher education, I will make all of them squirm. It’s time to take back education and not allow all the head bobbing and conformity that has everyone walking in lockstep. It will be such a relief.
Comment by Scott Lassiter — March 21, 2010 @ 2:15 pm - March 21, 2010
Given that the vast majority of Americans oppose ObamaCareless, a failure to kill it would seem to have little to do with that.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — March 21, 2010 @ 2:22 pm - March 21, 2010
Of course you do. You’re playing games and love the attention. (Typical symptom of leftism? Check.)
Translation: Others are responsible for your behavior. (Typical symptom of leftism? Check.)
Translation: “You people should not have seen through me so quickly. That you saw through me from the start, reflects discredit on you.” (An insane tack. Typical symptom of leftism? Check.)
Transation: You support fascism, Phil Holmes – while pretending to wring your hands. (Typical symptom of leftism? Check.)
Of course you would claim that. That’s your pretense. But as NDT has pointed out, it is exactly and only a pretense – because *Obamacare will massively destroy jobs*, one part of why we oppose it.
Your phony, wrong implication that Obamacare would somehow help people economically is also canned Left talking point. So now you’re reduced to spewing talking points. (Typical symptom of leftism? Check.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 21, 2010 @ 2:23 pm - March 21, 2010
Ummm… how about, fiscally conservative but socially libertarian?
(Which to me are two consistent positions. Small government, small government.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 21, 2010 @ 2:33 pm - March 21, 2010
(Clarification on #28: What I tagged as Phil’s phony claim is not his claim that people are in trouble in this economy – which is true, more true than Phil or any Obamacare-lover knows – but rather, his implication that somehow he cares about it. While others, his opponents, don’t. Those parts are fake, false, wrong and phony.)
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 21, 2010 @ 2:37 pm - March 21, 2010
Agreed, ILC.
What’s funny is that the Obama Party is the party of trust fund babies — look at the Kennedys, look at Pelosi, look at Kerry, and others. If these people actually wanted to help “the poor”, they could reach into their own pockets and actually pay for things themselves.
But they don’t. Instead, they use governmental power to compel OTHER people to pay for them and to take control of OTHER peoples’ lives — while they exempt themselves from paying the taxes and having to put up with the “health care”.
Phil Holmes is a dupe of epic proportions. It should be obvious to everyone that he hasn’t thought of the consequences of this bill beyond the Obama talking point that he’ll be getting a fatter welfare check. He talks and whines about “jobs”, but ignores the clear, factual indications that this bill will COST jobs.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2010 @ 3:12 pm - March 21, 2010
#29: I should clarify, ILC. I have absolutely no problem with people who ARE fiscally conservative and socially liberal (most of my favorite people are exactly that). It’s the use of that specific EXPRESSION that is like nails on a blackboard to me. In my observation, that particular way of stating one’s politics was invented about 15-20 years ago when it suddenly became socially unacceptable to be a Republican. For years after that, whenever the topic of politics would come up, someone would inevitably describe their beliefs by using that cliched expression.
It drove me crazy because at that time what it really translated to was: “I’m a Republican, but I’m not going to say I am because if I do and there is a Democrat within earshot, I will most certainly be sneered at, castigated, and/or blackballed at this function before anyone has a chance to get to know me. Thus, I will give in to my insecurities (and the bigotry and intolerance of liberals) and describe myself as ‘fiscally conservative’ and ‘socially liberal,’ thereby avoiding social suicide and then having to endure the persecution that would surely follow.”
I began hearing it so many times that I just saw it as a cop-out–used by people who were either really insecure about their beliefs or in truth, had no strong convictions about much of anything. It covers everything, yet describes virtually nothing at the same time. Barack Obama and Dick Cheney would both be comfortable with it which proves it’s useless. Does that make sense?
Comment by Sean A — March 21, 2010 @ 3:35 pm - March 21, 2010
Whatever. Your arguments did not sway the American public in the direction you wanted. How many times did your ilk say to democrats, after the 2000 election, “get over it.” Now it is your turn.
How sad that you are dredging up 30 year old conservative talking points: “… he hasn’t thought of the consequences of this bill beyond the Obama talking point that he’ll be getting a fatter welfare check.” What a tired and lame cliche.
Comment by Phil Holmes — March 21, 2010 @ 3:37 pm - March 21, 2010
#24: “If I were a congressman, would I vote for it? Well, I’m not a congressman, and I have not read the bill, nor do I have a paid staff to read it and summarize it for me. Knowing what I know now, yes I would vote for it.”
Hmmmm….let’s see…you haven’t read the bill, but you would vote for it based on “what you know now.” Wait a minute, Phil. Are you absolutely sure you’re not a member of Congress right now? Because the impression? Uncanny.
Comment by Sean A — March 21, 2010 @ 3:41 pm - March 21, 2010
I like phil at number 12:
“They create the conditions that excuse their own unreasonableness.”
There is no better description of modern conservatism.
Comment by levi — March 21, 2010 @ 3:44 pm - March 21, 2010
Your arguments did not sway the American public in the direction you wanted.
Actually, it swayed them quite nicely. That’s why there were tens of thousands protesting ObamaCare in DC yesterday. That’s why this has taken a year to ram through Congress, with the only way it could be done being attempts at changing the rules, unconstitutional bribes and kickbacks, and even today, desperate attempts to make backroom deals.
And what was your Obama saying in 2008? Oh, that’s right, no new taxes, no increase in fees, no attempt to take over health care, open and transparent on everything, bipartisanship, net spending cut, reduce the deficit, blah blah blah.
Suggestion, Phil; do not use an election in which it is obvious that you and your Obama Party lied to the American public as proof of your “mandate”. Indeed, your Barack Obama said mere weeks ago at the “health care summit” that he should not be held accountable for or be expected to keep his campaign promises.
Meanwhile, it is obvious that you haven’t thought of the consequences. You claim to be interested in “jobs”, but then duck and dodge at the obvious fact that imposing vast new taxes, fees, and requirements on businesses leaves them with one choice — go bankrupt or cut jobs. If you had ever worked in virtually ANY business, you would know that the single largest expense is payroll — and that, when other expenses go up, the only way to often deal with that is to cut payroll and increase productivity.
But again, you haven’t thought of that because you don’t care. You’re a moocher who whines about the unemployed to try to get your checks fattened, never minding the fact that the act of fattening your checks will end up with more people being unemployed.
Do you support that, Phil? Do you support “health care reform” that produces more unemployed and costs more jobs?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2010 @ 3:50 pm - March 21, 2010
There is no better description of modern conservatism.
Levi, your lies were exposed already over in the other thread.
But of course, we know that liberals like yourself support lies as long as they are used to advance liberal causes, right? You’ve already stated that Barack Obama can lie as much as he wants because he’s a liberal.
Next time you start your screeds about Bush allegedly lying, we’re going to point out that you support lies by the Obama Party and its members, so you’re just a hypocrite.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — March 21, 2010 @ 3:54 pm - March 21, 2010
#33: “How many times did your ilk say to democrats, after the 2000 election, ‘get over it.’ Now it is your turn.”
Wrong again, Phil. “Get over it” is a gross mischaracterization of Bush’s legislative agenda during his Presidency. Bush dicked around with the liberals in Congress and the UN for months and months before we went into Iraq and Democrats voted FOR the resolution authorizing military action against Iraq (Clinton, Kerry, etc.). Are you going to tell us that Bush told Democrats to “get over it” and then directed Republican lawmakers to “ram through” a prescription drug entitlement program? Yeah, they were really hopping mad over that “tyranny of the majority.” And what about the (defeated, thank God) shamnesty bill? Yes, what a shocking slap in the face that was to the Democrats because if there’s anything they can’t stand, it’s people in this country illegally. And when it was politically expedient for the Democrats to suddenly oppose the war that they voted for, Bush did not respond to their demands for an immediate pull-out with “get over it.” He explained that our intelligence made it clear that an immediate retreat would have led to a genocidal slaughter of our Iraqi allies (not that it mattered to the Democrats in Congress). So, FYI, you’re full of shit.
Comment by Sean A — March 21, 2010 @ 3:59 pm - March 21, 2010
Imagine if Bush had passed the Iraq War Authorization – or for that matter, No Child Left Behind – on a partisan, party-line vote, with bribes, kickbacks, and in the background, threats of Demon Pass.
He didn’t. From the beginning he wanted and worked hard for bipartisan support. For real (not like the phony Obama). And, in those examples, his efforts were successful; he earned massive bipartisan support.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 21, 2010 @ 5:33 pm - March 21, 2010
#32 Sean A – Yeah, that makes sense, thanks.
Comment by ILoveCapitalism — March 21, 2010 @ 5:37 pm - March 21, 2010