President Barack Obama - Term 1 and 2 Thread

[RossValoryRocks]

How many checks does your ass cash each week ?

I don't open mouth to someone who can break my legs on whim...so none.

back to highschool I see... Grow the fuck up !!
Get a grip dude,,, youre old enough to be able to understand that anytime people pick on you or dont agree with your political views, you shouldnt play the "Im bigger and I can kick your ass " card... Its getting old man... And you deny that your a hot-head?? seriously ??

When assfucks like you constantly have to push my buttons, yeah I am a hot head.

And I only attack when attacked dickhead.

[RossValoryRocks]

How many checks does your ass cash each week ?

I don't open mouth to someone who can break my legs on whim...so none.

I know a couple of gay guys that couldn't break your legs.....

I bet you do, if you could get your mouth off their cocks long enough to ask them (don't talk with your mouth full, it's not polite!)...hey but look at the bright side...now that DADT is repealed you can go back in the Air Force!

[S2M]

How many checks does your ass cash each week ?

I don't open mouth to someone who can break my legs on whim...so none.

back to highschool I see... Grow the fuck up !!
Get a grip dude,,, youre old enough to be able to understand that anytime people pick on you or dont agree with your political views, you shouldnt play the "Im bigger and I can kick your ass " card... Its getting old man... And you deny that your a hot-head?? seriously ??

When assfucks like you constantly have to push my buttons, yeah I am a hot head.

And I only attack when attacked dickhead.

[Behshad]

How many checks does your ass cash each week ?

I don't open mouth to someone who can break my legs on whim...so none.

back to highschool I see... Grow the fuck up !!
Get a grip dude,,, youre old enough to be able to understand that anytime people pick on you or dont agree with your political views, you shouldnt play the "Im bigger and I can kick your ass " card... Its getting old man... And you deny that your a hot-head?? seriously ??

When assfucks like you constantly have to push my buttons, yeah I am a hot head.

And I only attack when attacked dickhead.

constantly !??? we had a debate 2 days ago, mind you NOT ONCE did I pick on you, just expressed my views that YOU took personally.(but we ended the debate peacefully agreeing on some points)...
I cracked a joke today,,, actually I cracked 10 jokes today,, one was towards you,,, and I didnt think you would be SO sensetive,,, I thought we were friend, but apparently as of now we arent, since you cant take any jokes anymore and you go from Vet-Ret in a split second

[S2M]

Seriously, Stu....you just need to chill out, son....

[Saint John]

This thread is getting good.

Stu, what are you doing for the game Sunday?

[Behshad]

This thread is getting good.

Stu, what are you doing for the game Sunday?

[Saint John]

This thread is getting good.

Stu, what are you doing for the game Sunday?

lol ... no shit stirring on my part (this time). The hotel I'm staying at (for the next 1+ month) is only about 5 miles from where Stu lives.

[StevePerryHair]

This thread is getting good.

Stu, what are you doing for the game Sunday?

lol ... no shit stirring on my part (this time). The hotel I'm staying at (for the next 1+ month) is only about 5 miles from where Stu lives.

Guess you like having use of your legs

[Behshad]

This thread is getting good.

Stu, what are you doing for the game Sunday?

lol ... no shit stirring on my part (this time). The hotel I'm staying at (for the next 1+ month) is only about 5 miles from where Stu lives.

If you catch superbowl with him, use debit card, no checks

[Saint John]

BB and Lynn ... too funny!!!

[StevePerryHair]

BB and Lynn ... too funny!!!

No, BB was funnier

[RedWingFan]

"You know we have 3 branches of government. We have a House, we have a Senate, and we have a President. And all 3 of us are going to have to come together...." - Sarah Palin

Uh... I thought it was the Legislative, Executive and the Judiciary?

[Lula]

"You know we have 3 branches of government. We have a House, we have a Senate, and we have a President. And all 3 of us are going to have to come together...." - Sarah Palin

Uh... I thought it was the Legislative, Executive and the Judiciary?

and thankfully mrs palin is nowhere near even her version of the 3 branches. she just cracks me up

[RedWingFan]

"You know we have 3 branches of government. We have a House, we have a Senate, and we have a President. And all 3 of us are going to have to come together...." - Sarah Palin

Uh... I thought it was the Legislative, Executive and the Judiciary?

and thankfully mrs palin is nowhere near even her version of the 3 branches. she just cracks me up

Here's video!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eEN0sHPKGA

Unfortunately the legislative branch is not immune. Wonder if the "sensationalist" mainstream media will pick up on this?

[conversationpc]

the most dangerous place in America is getting caught between Chuck U Schumer and a camera/microphone..


good one RWF

If that guy was any more of a media whore, he'd probably have a noticeable boner every time he was near a camera. I'm surprised cameramen don't have to wear a pancho when he's around.

[slucero]

The Law itself will save a trillion dollars(CBO numbers, not mine),

Not so....

BREAKING: CBO Says Repealing ObamaCare Would Reduce Net Spending by $540 Billion
http://spectator.org/blog/2011/01/07...s-repealing-ob

By Philip Klein on 1.7.11 @ 1:56PM

The Congressional Budget Office, in an email to Capitol Hill staffers obtained by the Spectator, has said that repealing the national health care law would reduce net spending by $540 billion in the ten year period from 2012 through 2021. That number represents the cost of the new provisions, minus Medicare cuts. Repealing the bill would also eliminate $770 billion in taxes. It's the tax hikes in the health care law (along with the Medicare cuts) which accounts for the $230 billion in deficit reduction.

Full email, from Edward "Sandy" Davis, CBO's Associate Director for Legislative Affairs, below.

To interested Hill staff:

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have not yet developed a detailed estimate of the budgetary impact of H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, which would repeal the major health care legislation enacted in March 2010. Yesterday, we released a preliminary analysis of that legislation indicating that, over the 2012-2021 period, the effect of enacting H.R. 2 on the federal budget as a result of changes in direct spending and revenues is likely to be an increase in deficits in the vicinity of $230 billion, plus or minus the effects of forthcoming technical and economic changes to CBO’s and JCT’s projections for that period.

We have been asked to provide the revenue and direct spending components of that total. Extrapolating the estimated budgetary effects of the original health care legislation and accounting for the effects of subsequent legislation, CBO anticipates that enacting H.R. 2 would probably yield, for the 2012-2021 period, a reduction in revenues in the neighborhood of $770 billion and a reduction in outlays in the vicinity of $540 billion, plus or minus the effects of forthcoming technical and economic changes to CBO’s and JCT’s projections.

CBO will post a Director’s blog with this information on the CBO website shortly. Please let me know if you have any questions.

Sandy
Edward "Sandy" Davis
Associate Director for Legislative Affairs
Congressional Budget Office

CBO press release

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=1759

Additional Information on CBO’s Preliminary Analysis of H.R. 2

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) have not yet developed a detailed estimate of the budgetary impact of H.R. 2, the Repealing the Job-Killing Health Care Law Act, which would repeal the major health care legislation enacted in March 2010. Yesterday, we released a preliminary analysis of that legislation indicating that, over the 2012-2021 period, the effect of enacting H.R. 2 on the federal budget as a result of changes in direct spending and revenues is likely to be an increase in deficits in the vicinity of $230 billion, plus or minus the effects of forthcoming technical and economic changes to CBO’s and JCT’s projections for that period.

We have been asked to provide the revenue and direct spending components of that total. Extrapolating the estimated budgetary effects of the original health care legislation and accounting for the effects of subsequent legislation, CBO anticipates that enacting H.R. 2 would probably yield, for the 2012-2021 period, a reduction in revenues in the neighborhood of $770 billion and a reduction in outlays in the vicinity of $540 billion, plus or minus the effects of forthcoming technical and economic changes to CBO’s and JCT’s projections.

And then there's the Senate Testimony of Medicare's Chief Actuary Rick Foster, which provided a concise, damaging verdict on two key promises of the health care law's proponents.

McCLINTOCK: "True or false: The two principle promises that were made in support of Obamacare were one, that it would hold costs down. True or false?"

FOSTER: "I would say false, more so than true."

McCLINTOCK: "The other promise... was the promise that if you like your plan, you can keep it. True or false?"

FOSTER: "Not true in all cases."


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XC9rhGWJA2w

[S2M]

I find it very suspicious that every rethug voted to repeal the HC bill....that tells me it is political, and nothing to do with the american people. And its funny - I recall congress/senate having a VERY good(emphasis on VERY) healthcare plan....

[Seven Wishes2]

Further evidenced by the fact that the individual mandate has been a GOP idea since the late 1960's, and has enjoyed full mainstream Republican support for 40 years - until Obama compromised the single payor option in order to compromise with the GOP. Now they suddenly hate it.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Further evidenced by the fact that the individual mandate has been a GOP idea since the late 1960's, and has enjoyed full mainstream Republican support for 40 years - until Obama compromised the single payor option in order to compromise with the GOP. Now they suddenly hate it.

Let me see if I can unpick the logic here . If the argument is :
1) Republicans were in support of individual mandates since the 1960's
2) Republicans are currently in opposition to individual mandates
3) People who turn their back on long held beliefs are hypocrites .
conclusion - therefore Republicans are hypocrites

thats a valid argument- and its a true argument if premises 1-3 are correct And BTW I would agree with you.

However if your argument consists of the same above premises (1-3) and then make the conclusion : therefore Individual mandates for health care must be right- that is not a valid argument – the rightness of wrongness of an individual mandate doesn’t depend upon who the character of those who agree or disagree with it.

Individual mandates are immoral – no one can force you against your will to buy anything. Of course that right comes with a moral responsibility , you must pay in full for any medical services you do use, or go without and suffer the consequences. The rightness or wrongness of indivudal mandates lies therein.

IMO, its worth pointing out that there wouldn’t be a debate about individual mandates if healthcare were run as a real free market (it HASN’T been for the last 40 years in the US) If individuals paid the bills themselves and then got reimbursed by their insurance, if medicare/ Medicaid and govt regulation hadn’t distorted the price/ supply system, if doctors could defend themselves against frivolous lawsuit, we wouldn’t have a problem with unaffordability and we wouldn’t have even been getting to the question of if there should be an individual mandate.

[Seven Wishes2]

Matt, I've written about this at great length and spared neither party my disdain. I find it interesting that you chose to dissect my late-night summation as opposed to my more detailed musings about this issue.

Nonetheless, it's true that a very good number of Senators and Representatives have indicated their support for the individual mandate in years past. What bothers me is not the change of philosophical tack, but rather the manner in which many on the right have ascribed this approach to the (apparently) coming end of days and (presumably) insurrection. Where was the outrage when their party backed up this mantra for two generations? Why only vociferously express this only when the other party champions the cause?

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Matt, I've written about this at great length and spared neither party my disdain. I find it interesting that you chose to dissect my late-night summation as opposed to my more detailed musings about this issue.

Nonetheless, it's true that a very good number of Senators and Representatives have indicated their support for the individual mandate in years past. What bothers me is not the change of philosophical tack, but rather the manner in which many on the right have ascribed this approach to the (apparently) coming end of days and (presumably) insurrection. Where was the outrage when their party backed up this mantra for two generations? Why only vociferously express this only when the other party champions the cause?

Seven, I wasn't necessarily trying to pick apart your last post, or necessarily challenge you point about on his subjet on previous posts. I was just making out that the fact that politicians flip flop on an idea/policy doesn't necessarily make that idea/policy right or wrong, and you need to consider the merits of that idea/policy in isolation and not get sidetracked by that other noise.

I think you and I do agree on the point that you should base what you stand for on firm convictions and a basic philosophy (whether thats left or right) and have enough integrity to stick by it without comprimise. Sadly lacking in both parties. Which is the exact reason I sold my collection of Nixon/Agnew buttons, ripped the arms off my talking GW Bush talking doll like it was an uwanted Barbie doll, and burned my soft porn like collection which contained pictures of Lizzy Dole and K bailey Hutchinson

[hoagiepete]

Further evidenced by the fact that the individual mandate has been a GOP idea since the late 1960's, and has enjoyed full mainstream Republican support for 40 years - until Obama compromised the single payor option in order to compromise with the GOP. Now they suddenly hate it.

Let me see if I can unpick the logic here . If the argument is :
1) Republicans were in support of individual mandates since the 1960's
2) Republicans are currently in opposition to individual mandates
3) People who turn their back on long held beliefs are hypocrites .
conclusion - therefore Republicans are hypocrites

thats a valid argument- and its a true argument if premises 1-3 are correct And BTW I would agree with you.

However if your argument consists of the same above premises (1-3) and then make the conclusion : therefore Individual mandates for health care must be right- that is not a valid argument – the rightness of wrongness of an individual mandate doesn’t depend upon who the character of those who agree or disagree with it.

Individual mandates are immoral – no one can force you against your will to buy anything. Of course that right comes with a moral responsibility , you must pay in full for any medical services you do use, or go without and suffer the consequences. The rightness or wrongness of indivudal mandates lies therein.


IMO, its worth pointing out that there wouldn’t be a debate about individual mandates if healthcare were run as a real free market (it HASN’T been for the last 40 years in the US) If individuals paid the bills themselves and then got reimbursed by their insurance, if medicare/ Medicaid and govt regulation hadn’t distorted the price/ supply system, if doctors could defend themselves against frivolous lawsuit, we wouldn’t have a problem with unaffordability and we wouldn’t have even been getting to the question of if there should be an individual mandate.

Hell I'm impressed with both of you if you knew what the Republicans were up to back in the 60's. Not sure I remember mainstream support since then, but quite honestly, I wasn't paying attention until recently. I'll give you credit, you have a lot more time to research this stuff than I. Kudos.

[RossValoryRocks]

Matt, I've written about this at great length and spared neither party my disdain. I find it interesting that you chose to dissect my late-night summation as opposed to my more detailed musings about this issue.

Nonetheless, it's true that a very good number of Senators and Representatives have indicated their support for the individual mandate in years past. What bothers me is not the change of philosophical tack, but rather the manner in which many on the right have ascribed this approach to the (apparently) coming end of days and (presumably) insurrection. Where was the outrage when their party backed up this mantra for two generations? Why only vociferously express this only when the other party champions the cause?

I think you have to look also at what would be "mandated"...the Dems want everyone to have full on medical insurance while the republican idea (Back in the early '90s NOT the 60s, 70s and 80s) would require catastrophic coverage only.

Either way both are unconstitutional.

[lights1961]

if we had the same coverage care as CONGRESS then I would be all for national health care...

and if its such GOOD POLICY...why on earth are over 700 companies excempt from having to go to the plan..

[conversationpc]

Just a thought but shouldn't this thread be named "Barack Obama, ONLY term thread". I'm just sayin'...

[Rockindeano]

Matt, I've written about this at great length and spared neither party my disdain. I find it interesting that you chose to dissect my late-night summation as opposed to my more detailed musings about this issue.

Nonetheless, it's true that a very good number of Senators and Representatives have indicated their support for the individual mandate in years past. What bothers me is not the change of philosophical tack, but rather the manner in which many on the right have ascribed this approach to the (apparently) coming end of days and (presumably) insurrection. Where was the outrage when their party backed up this mantra for two generations? Why only vociferously express this only when the other party champions the cause?

I think you have to look also at what would be "mandated"...the Dems want everyone to have full on medical insurance while the republican idea (Back in the early '90s NOT the 60s, 70s and 80s) would require catastrophic coverage only.

Either way both are unconstitutional.

Oh shut the fuck about your unconstitutional bullshit. Do you not think the White House Counsel poured through this shit rather thoroughly before putting it up for a vote? And by the way Mr I hate everything about the left and government in general, yet use it's roads, transit systems and infrastructure, that in addition to that paid off fuck Vinson, there are other judges who have found it to be CONSTITUTIONAL.

Just because some close minded conservative fuck, in the most conservative city in the country, and in the state of Florida of all places (like they haven't fucked this nation up beyond belief already), does not make this set in stone. This is going to the SCOTUS, and we'll take our chances there. Slucero was part right, in that it is 4-4 now and Kennedy is the tie breaker.

[Gin and Tonic Sky]

Matt, I've written about this at great length and spared neither party my disdain. I find it interesting that you chose to dissect my late-night summation as opposed to my more detailed musings about this issue.

Nonetheless, it's true that a very good number of Senators and Representatives have indicated their support for the individual mandate in years past. What bothers me is not the change of philosophical tack, but rather the manner in which many on the right have ascribed this approach to the (apparently) coming end of days and (presumably) insurrection. Where was the outrage when their party backed up this mantra for two generations? Why only vociferously express this only when the other party champions the cause?

I think you have to look also at what would be "mandated"...the Dems want everyone to have full on medical insurance while the republican idea (Back in the early '90s NOT the 60s, 70s and 80s) would require catastrophic coverage only.

Either way both are unconstitutional.

Oh shut the fuck about your unconstitutional bullshit. Do you not think the White House Counsel poured through this shit rather thoroughly before putting it up for a vote? And by the way Mr I hate everything about the left and government in general, yet use it's roads, transit systems and infrastructure, that in addition to that paid off fuck Vinson, there are other judges who have found it to be CONSTITUTIONAL.

Just because some close minded conservative fuck, in the most conservative city in the country, and in the state of Florida of all places (like they haven't fucked this nation up beyond belief already), does not make this set in stone. This is going to the SCOTUS, and we'll take our chances there. Slucero was part right, in that it is 4-4 now and Kennedy is the tie breaker.

It is unconstitutional, its a violation of the tenth amendment for one thing

[Rockindeano]

Matt, I've written about this at great length and spared neither party my disdain. I find it interesting that you chose to dissect my late-night summation as opposed to my more detailed musings about this issue.

Nonetheless, it's true that a very good number of Senators and Representatives have indicated their support for the individual mandate in years past. What bothers me is not the change of philosophical tack, but rather the manner in which many on the right have ascribed this approach to the (apparently) coming end of days and (presumably) insurrection. Where was the outrage when their party backed up this mantra for two generations? Why only vociferously express this only when the other party champions the cause?

I think you have to look also at what would be "mandated"...the Dems want everyone to have full on medical insurance while the republican idea (Back in the early '90s NOT the 60s, 70s and 80s) would require catastrophic coverage only.

Either way both are unconstitutional.

Oh shut the fuck about your unconstitutional bullshit. Do you not think the White House Counsel poured through this shit rather thoroughly before putting it up for a vote? And by the way Mr I hate everything about the left and government in general, yet use it's roads, transit systems and infrastructure, that in addition to that paid off fuck Vinson, there are other judges who have found it to be CONSTITUTIONAL.

Just because some close minded conservative fuck, in the most conservative city in the country, and in the state of Florida of all places (like they haven't fucked this nation up beyond belief already), does not make this set in stone. This is going to the SCOTUS, and we'll take our chances there. Slucero was part right, in that it is 4-4 now and Kennedy is the tie breaker.

It is unconstitutional, its a violation of the tenth amendment for one thing

WTF would you know? You have an avatar of that whiny pussass Tarkenton and you live in a dentist-less shithole. Seriously, there are ways around this, just watch.

[Lula]

as a tax payer i'm tired of paying medical bills of people that don't have insurance. i'm tired of paying the increasing premiums for decreasing coverage. if people aren't required to have insurance then the hospitals should stop treating the uninsured. no cash to pay for that emergency surgery? too bad. look at that forward thinking brewer/arizona, she wants the ffed gov to okay her desire to discontinue state health care

and just because one activist judge ruled the law unconstitutional does not make it so.