The Obama speech

And that's not the only thing that's unbelievable, Reg.

I listened to the president's speech.  He sure gives great speech.  Like this one, given to the AFL-CIO in 2003:

“I happen to be a proponent of a single payer universal health care program.” (applause) “I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its Gross National Product on health care cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. And that’s what Jim is talking about when he says everybody in, nobody out. A single payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. And that’s what I’d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately. Because first we have to take back the White House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the House.”

Um, excuse me, Mr. President, you have the White House, the Senate and the House.  And now what do we hear?  

That not only was the single-payer solution "off the table" before negotiations even started, now, apparently "the public option" is going to be less than 5 percent of the plan?

This is not change I can believe in.  This is proof, if any more were needed, that America has the best little democracy that money can buy. What a hideously unfunny farce.

This plot is as predictable and tiresome as a sitcom.

The republicans are vicious and the democrats spineless.   NEXT!

Reg, you neglected to mention that Dr. Boustany is not only a birther wackdoodle but also so unpatriotic that he tried to buy a British Lordship.  When the "sellers" turned out to be con artists, he was so unashamed of his actions that he sued them:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/

bensmith/0909/Title_search.html

I could never make this stuff up!

yinzerati:

“You may not like the guys flying with you.  They may not like you.  But whose side are you on?”

Yes, the Democrats are spineless.  But they're ours.  They are what we have to work through right now.  Where the loyal opposition is trying to go is no sitcom.  First things first.

Perfect, good, enemy of . . . something like that.

"Yes, the Democras are spineless.  But they're our."  

I wouldn't brag about that!

Minx or anyone else,

Although it made my stomach turn hearing a Congressman yell "you lie", let me ask you something.  When BO says the program will cost $900 Billion and that "most" of that will be paid by eliminating fraud in Medicare & Medicaid, that would mean if "most" is only defined as 51%, then there is $459 Billion is waste that will be eliminated.  Do you believe that the same government program that has allowed that kind of waste, will then double the number of recipients, yet eliminate what it has allowed to be wasted?  If the answer is yes, then why doesn't the government eliminate it now?  What does "reform" have to do with fraud?  If as BO claims, they can't find the savings to pay for this program, he says the government will cut funding in other areas to pay for it.  Do you really believe that?  If they can find those cuts, why aren't they being cut now?  Does that mean that money is also be wasted now?

When BO says that illegals won't be included in the health-care plan, yet his campaign pledge was to make illegals, legal, what does that mean to you?  

Joe Wilson screams out, "You lie".

Obama did lie during that speech.  These words will echo again and again through those halls and the halls of homes across this nation.  They may well signal the marching orders of all those that fear for the fiscal health of this country, now - and for decades to come.

Wow.  No answers.  I feel like I'm at a townhall meeting.

Titan Lee,  the former president, whom I would assume you supported fully, was a big supporter of immigrant rights and a path to citizenship.  In other words, he was a strong proponent of making illegals legal.  As to no answers to your post, it's just not worth the effort, dude.  Original independent thinking is always stimulating.  Brainwashed knee-jerk talking points-- not so much. Where's the value-added when we can get the same thing by tuning into any am radio frequency to listen to the right wing rant which is pretty much devoid of facts, history, context, values.  Isn't the GOP down to about 28% of the population that's even willing to self-identify as Republican?  Good luck with that.  The GOP has lost three generations of my family.  Fifty-somethings, thirty-somethings and twenty-somethings who all started out with an affinity for conservative values and have been completely turned off by hypocritical right wing pols and their marionettes in talk radio.   I wonder how you chose the moniker.  "Titan" as in "giant" and Lee as in "Robert E Lee"?  I know, I know, after 20 years living in Richmond, Virginia (the old capital of the Confederacy), it's heritage not hate.  Right, dude?  The tea-baggers fulminate about socialism and big government, but I wonder where were the same folks when the Bush administration was running up the biggest budget deficits and trade deficits in our history.  I wonder where these folks were when the Bush administration and the Republican Congress were jamming through the prescription drug program which was completely unfunded.  Wasn't that socialized medicine and a big government take-over?  Didn't the Bush administration threaten to fire the government actuary if he testified truthfully to Congress regarding the real price tag associated with that profit guarantee for big Pharma?  Speaking of big government, where were the tea baggers when the Republican president sent the Republican Treasury Secretary and the Republican Fed Chairman to Congress to demand $750 billion for a bank bailout and assured the legislature that they risked a global collapse if the funds weren't forthcoming?  Where was the tea-baggin' foaming at the mouth crowd when Bush refused to enforce the law via signing statements and lied about warrantless wire-tapping and illegal torture?  I guess they were reading their little pocket constitutions and finding the loopholes for all that.  Well my little military family was actually sending our loved one off to war in Iraq-- you remember that jolly little war that was going to last six days six weeks I doubt six months?  The war the Bush administration never accounted for on the budget?  Yeah that one.  Oh and just so you know, we've been flying the flag since before it became fashionable and we actually know how to display it according to the rules.  Our little Democratic family has been associated with the US Army for twenty-one years.  I know that makes us phony soldiers in Rush's view.  So anyway, when you post something half as witty or inciteful as Little Minx, Lease, or Toadsly, maybe you'll get more response.  

I ask this question here as I asked in another section.

Why isn't the PG reporting the large rally in Wash. DC today?  Why haven't they covered the cross country bus rallies during this past week?  This is news!  

The PG wants to pretend it wants bi-partisan accord in this health bill, but refuses to report anything that goes against it's liberal leanings.  

How utterly sad, that journalism is dead and burried in Pittsburgh.

ciejai,

Did your fingers get tired typing one of the longest "non-answers" in history?  I realize the "effort" you don't want to put out is commonly referred to as "thinking", but perhaps if you tried it, you might like it Mikey.  I wasn't expecting any answers, except for maybe an incoherent ramble like yours.  That would have required the "effort" Liberals are incapable of.  

The truth, unfortunately for you, is that there aren't enough stupid people who will believe what they're being told by the Liberals.  But I hope the Liberals keep talking.  It might even solve the health care problem.  Laughter is the best medicine.

Touche' ciejai. "a hit, a palpable hit"

Right on point, ciejai!  Where INDEED were those tea-baggers when the Bush/Cheney administration was lavishly spending the country into massive debt whilst cutting the taxes of the wealthy?

And, ciejai, my gratitude to your family members who have served in the ACTIVE military -- unlike, say, those chicken-hawks Bush, Cheney, Limbaugh, et al.

Duh - tea parties were started by a diverse group of citizens (note citizens).  They are now at a point where they are p***ed off enough to gather together to voice their concern and anger against both administrations.  

If you little people would bother to listen to all reports on all stations you would see that they are tired of 'big" government  on both sides of the aisle.  You sould so ignorant when you talk so stupidly.  

You ought to be proud of these hundreds of thousands of people willing to stand up to what has been and is wrong with government.

If you are going to moan about what you think is going on, at least get your facts correct.

Minxie, my husband served in both the regular Army and the Reserve.  He was called to active duty three times and spent part of 2003 in Iraq.  He did not think the venture was a prudent military move but he was proud to serve and eager to contribute.  After 21 years of service, he reluctantly retired from an institution he loves-- the US Army.  He is a big easy-going guy who seldom gets too worked up about anything political.  But he turns to me every once in a while and says, "My last best hope is that some international body will try and convict Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and all the rest who dishonered the military by making torture the policy of the United States.  At least that way they'd never be able to travel abroad."  Thanks for your thanks.  

Regarding reserve duty,  it was pretty obvious to anyone who knows how to read military records that Mr Bush did not have enough "points" to have fufilled his commitment.  We however did not think that disqualified him to serve as president if elected.  

All I ask from the loyal opposition is a little intellectual honesty and consistency.  Even though we did not vote for Mr Bush we always measured what his detractors said by asking ourselves if this were a Democratic president would we agree or  disagree with the criticism.  We still apply that standard.    

Finally, check out what Charles C Krulak, the former Commandant of the Marine Corps had to say about torture this week.  The op-ed is in the Miami Herald.    

What this little person pays attention to: facts.  After eight years of Mr Bush, our first MBA president, having his hands on virtually every lever power we should be living in economic utopia.  The GOP won the argument and put their plan into effect.  Cut taxes for the wealthy, deregulate business and finance and prosperity will rain down on all of us.  Checking the Bureau of Labor Statistics "B" tables,  the Bush economy produced just 169,000 private sector jobs from start to finish.  That's private employment seasonally adjusted in the BLS "B" tables.  You can look it up.  The Clinton economy produced 20,569,000 private sector jobs.  Working with both a Democratic and Republican legislatures the Clinton administration left a budget surplus which the Bush people promptly turned into the biggest deficit in our history by blowing a three trillion dollar hole in the budget.  And they never accounted for one penny of the war spending on budget.  It was handled in "special" supplementals.  Of course Mr Cheney explained that all away by famously observing that Reagan proved deficits don't matter.

We can all see the tea-baggers are very very angry people.   To assert they are angry at Mr Bush and the Republicans is astonishing.  Would the tea people boo and heckle members of the previous administration if they showed up one of their parties?  I think not.  Which leads me to wonder, where was this anger when the Bush administration was blowing through 3 trillion dollars?  Where was this anger when the Bush administration jammed a huge prescription program through using fraudulent cost estimates?  No, amongst the tea-baggers, there seems to be something particularly anger-causing about the current administration .

ciejai:

READ THIS VERY SLOWLY SO YOU UNDERSTAND IT.

The anger and frustration you see is a culmination of the prior years and the new administration.  It got to a point where they had enough - hence the tea parties.

You don't understand simply because you don't want to understand.  It's easier for you and others to call them "very, very angry; among other names, ugly names.  It makes you feel better to make them less in your eyes.  It's easier than taking responsibility to deal with what the problems are in this country.  I feel sorry for all of you.

But I promise you this - you and others like you cannot dampen the spirit of these millions.  It is just the beginning.  Voices are being heard as never before.  For too long, the politicians of this country, both rep and dem, have been running amok. That time is over.  A government for the people and by the people is being realized.

Mr reply,  you, sir, are the one that refers to others as "little people" and prefaces his remarks with phrases one can only characterize as condescending.  You, sir, are the only one in this forum so far who has used profanity to berate other participants.  You are the one who characterized the tea people as "p***ed off."  Saying they are "angry people" agrees with your description in civilized language.  Where is your evidence in fact (a scientific opinion poll perhaps?) to justify the statement that any of today's demonstrators were angry at the previous administration? I'm all for a lively exchange but prefer verifiable facts.  As Mr Reagan (whom I voted for twice) said "Trust but verify."  As to the demonstrators being somehow less in my eyes: less than what?  They are citizens pure and simple.  They have the right to free speech.  I've got freedom of association.

Hmmm.

This is a quote from Obama's speech on Wed.:

"What we face," he wrote, "is above all a moral issue; at stake are not just the details of policy but fundamental principles of social justice and the character of our country." (taking about Kennedy).

In Liberalize, that sounds like this is more than a health-care bill.  This bill is based on every moral value this country was built on.  No one should have to die from an injury or disease because they don't have health insurance. That's not what this country is.  It sounds like if you object to this bill, then you are not only un-American, but immoral.  Is that what it meant?

Second hmmm.

Another quote from the same speech:

"Now, there are also those who claim that our reform efforts would insure illegal immigrants. This, too, is false. The reforms -- the reforms I'm proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally."

OK.  Now let's take a look at that first quote again. American values.  People dying from no health insurance.  Possibly the person who lives up the street from you dying from lack of health insurance.  American values.  A person who just happens to be an illegal.  Living here.  In America.  With American values.  Dying from an injury or illness that could have been prevented.  An illegal mother with 2 small kids.  Dead.

Obama isn't lying.  Therefore illegals will not be covered.  Obama isn't lying.  Our "moral value" is now defined as allowing illegals to die, because their lives aren't valued within our "moral value" system.

Hmmmm.

ciejai:

Because I actually listened to many of the people who were in attendance at the tea parties.  Do you really think you are the only won who owns caring about this country?

And don't preach to me about my language.  You haven't earned the right.

And they are little people that say some of the things that they say.  You are the one that called them "very angry people".  You are more than willing to tell me how to act, how they are supposed to act.

People like you don't really believe we "other people" have the right to free speech, the right of dissent - you just say it because you think it makes you look good.  

Well lady - you don't look good to me.

should have read:  Do you really think you are the only "one"

I will close with this.  You, Mr reply characterized the demonstrators as "p****ed off" and I agreed they were "very very angry."  What's the difference?  I have no desire to tell you how to act.  You on the other hand have told folks in this forum to, among other things, get their butts up off the couch and get in touch with the real world--certainly good advice, but built on your assumption that we little people are merely ignorant couch potatoes with no concept of the real world.  Therefore, our ideas mean nothing because we are just little couch potato people to you. (This little potato has biked 800 miles on her trail bike this year and expects to log 1200 before the snow flies.)  I stipulated the demonstrators have the right to free speech.  Now you come back and say people like me don't really believe in free speech or dissent.  So what is the use of discussion if my words and ideas aren't really my words and ideas in your view?  You've already decided what kind of person I am and the kind of person you've decided I am couldn't possible believe in dissent or acknowledge the anger of the demonstrators.    End of discussion.  I'll bet my libertarian economic ideas would really make your head spin.  Oh no, I forgot you'd just tell me those couldn't possibly be the views of "people like you."

cieja:

We finally agree on one point:

I have "already decided what kind of person you are".  "End of discussion".  (Wow that "end of discussion" was really something)

Mr reply, how can you possibly tell we agree on one point?  In your view my words don't necessarily  reflect what I believe.  In your book I'm probably just another uppity liberal woman.  Hey, I might change my user name to that.  Minxie, what do you think?

myreply

I have "already decided what kind of person you are"

Well, considering that Reg hasn't appointed you judge and jury of this blog, I'd wear that as a badge of honor!

ciejai, isn't it passing strange how "uppitiness" among women is viewed by *certain* people as a negative quality, while they simultaneously regard the very same trait as admirable in men?

Little Man:

Ooh, you're so intuitive!

Little Minx, I started a business career back in 1976 when sex harassment was a perq not a violation.  Over the course of twenty years I found that motivated women are frequently accepted in profit-centered positions if they can get their foot in the door and perform well.  In other words, if you can make money for the firm nobody spends much time worrying about whether you're uppity, aggressive, hard-charging, witchy, or whatever the term is.  My sense is that when a person's performance review is based on non-quantifiable criteria, things like uppitiness may enter unfairly into the equation.  BTW, have you seen Toadsly's two blog posts in the PLUS section?  Worth a look!

Pure logic, not intuition.

Hurling epithets is not a good way to try to win friends and influence people.

Minx, your last two made me laugh out loud.

ciejai:

Yours was a valiant try, and useful for the record, I suppose, if you had the time to waste.  You are dealing with people whose attitude, in so many words – their own – is, “I’m right, you’re wrong, period,” or who don’t really want answers, only to lob their little water balloons and see how the grownups react.

There was a point made about none of us being the only ones who care about this country.  It would help if there were agreement on what “this country” means.  What we think it is, and what we want it to be are two different questions, but that may be academic now.  The problem is the people (because there are so many) who are confused and frightened and angry about things they don’t like, and what they think is happening to *them*, and who equate that with the country.  The comment that caused Obama the most trouble during the campaign is turning out to be the most true.  (Ready, set, pounce.)

It was before my time, and Mr. Henry did not live here then, but this One Nation already fought one civil war.  

Callsign, as to wasting time, my laundry room is next to my computer room so I have been catching up on a Mt Everest of whites, mediums, and darks. The occasional post in this forum breaks up the monotony.  It took me a moment to understand your latest comment-- then it all came back to me.  I refuse to be brought low by focusing only on the noise and the anger.  In my little neighborhood I have occasion to spend time with lots of Republicans who are just as embarrassed by the recent incivility as I was by the goofs from Code Pink.  I look at the younger generation coming up and my spirits soar.  

ciejai, glad to oblige.  Have a good evening (in your newly clean clothes!).

Callsign:

The comment that will cause Obama the most trouble in his reign is "You lie".  I can promise you that.  

Love the way Reg throws in "it was fun when the Dems. were the ones sitting looking glum", to make us think he is an independent.

Ah, sure Reg.  Do you really believe you can convince us you had fun when the other party was in control? Me thinks you been watching Obama waaay too much. He thinks we can't see through him either.

You lean so far left you are ready to keel over. Go ahead, just admit it.

I can see it now - rallies filled with signs saying "You lie".

Today it was reported that Acorn is considering suing Fox for slander and defamation.  Wow, would I love to be in the court room.  Fox should get an Emmy for this reporting and for that on Van Jones.  I hope they keep after the people that surround Obama.  Why:

Because it is astounding that a president of these United States can hire 38 tsars, that report only to him and no one else.  He works for us. They work for us. They answer to us and our representatives.  

And "tsars" - why are they called that?  Def. of czar - a king or emporer, a tyrant, (informal) one in authority, leader.

Well, Obama fits all three definitions - but I still can't figure out what those people are.

Why nothing from Obama on Acorn?  And I don't mean a blurb from Gibbs.  This man constantly built Acorn up during and after the election.  He worked at Acorn!  Hell, he trained people at Acorn!

Like I said - go get them Fox.  Do the job that no other media outlet is doing.

Not only was there nothing from Obama on Acorn, there was nothing, zilch, zero, nadda, from him regarding Van Jones.

He knew nothing about Ayres, Rev. Wright, Redzko,Flagher, Bogdonavich (sp.?), Van Jones and now Acorn??? Really?

No wonder so many parents don't want their children listening to this man. He tells one lie after another.

Go Joe Wilson - Go Fox - Go Glenn Beck!

Ladyburg:

Their going would be fine with me, too.

Ladyburg:

How do we trust a president that hires people that he either knows nothing about, or just doesn't care to know anything about?  How do we trust a president that so far hires 38 (and counting) czars with alligience only to him?  How do we trust a president that hires czars in abundance before even finishes hiring his cabinent? How do we trust a president that lies to our faces?  How do we trust a president that expects respect, but does not give respect in return? (lying to our faces does not show respect etc)

That we have to depend on a cable news source to vet the "president's men" is astounding.  That the left doesn't ask these questions is even more astounding.

He said that we are not a country of blue states or red states, rather the United States.  Words, just words.

Myreply,

If you were looking to buy a new car, would you look for one in the grocery store?  If you needed to make a telephone call, would you use a coffee maker?

For some reason, this particular blog has become a nesting place for liberal bloggers, similar to the way MSNBC wastes space on your cable.  For you to expect to get an answer to a question on this site, would also mean you expect to hear the truth on MSNBC.  It ain't gonna happen.  Rather than getting angry, ask your questions and then smile when you see the non-answers, or even funnier yet, the actual "answers" you get.  Like mosquitoes, no one knows why Liberals exist or what good they're for.  Mosquitoes can only bite you when you don't hear them.  That's why they don't buzz right before landing on you.  Liberals aren't that smart.  If they would just stop their "buzzing", maybe they might get something done.  But if they could do that, they wouldn't be Liberals.

Titan:

"Hope springs eternal".

myreply - You ask, how do we trust? how do we trust? how do we trust?

We DON'T.