Whatever happened to the Obama sycophants?

[mini]

Speaking of Swiss "public health care"

What you out lined is the "basic" health insurance plans that each insurer must offer. All insurance companies (NOT TAXES) put money into a fund to pay for these basic services. The idea is that company A could get unduly burdened by having more really sick people apply to their company vs other insurers and they can not refuse anyone who chooses their company. Every citizen in Switzerland IS covered by insurance provided by private companies. The use of the world "social" in that statement is not related to gov't sponsored or paid by the gov't.

Anyway, I'm NOT COMPARING the two systems. I'm just telling you about it. The Swiss health care system is a mostly private one & is excellent. It does included research hospitals that are connected to the Universities. As pikto states it also provides a great deal of preventative care options. And the plans at the top level covers spa treatments, acupuncture and other natural/holistic/alternative approaches. Even this type of plan is much much lower priced that many of the US plans. This is mostly because the risk of the very sick is mitigated by all companies pooling resources. The Swiss do insurance well!

AND it happens to be one where ever person MUST BUY their own insurance. So the system that they are looking to set up in the US has the potential to be good. The implementation on such a large scale however... is a question.

 

[Choripán]

Hmmmm...WTF?? An "A-1" job? Are you mental or just in complete and utter denial of the facts?

If you are talking about raising our dept to 14 Trillion (more than the ALL the previous presidents COMBINED"), passing a socialist healthcare bill that will turn the U.S. healthcare system into basically Venezuela and Argentina (and I just recently experience public "health" process here) AND that 68% of the people STILL reject, and completely dividing the country in 2 while lying, stealing, and cheating with a smile...then yes, I guess he is doing an A-1 job.

I guess the people that still believe in hard-work, free enterprise, and NOT being entitled to other people's money would disagree.

I guess I'll be seeing you at the next Gremialista picket in front of the Min of Trabajo demanding more money for nothing...OR, you'll be back in the states asking "where's the free Obama money"? Go get'em tiger!

You are quite possibly the most uninformed person on this entire forum. And believe me that's quite an achievement. Classic right-winger mentality: make something up and then get pissed off about it. But in your case you make *everything* up and pitch a useless fit.

Not one thing you said in this post is true - all of it completely fabricated. Are you going out of your way to make sure that *everyone* thinks you're a moron? Why do I get the feeling that you spend a lot of time alone? Aren't you concerned that everyone can see that you are a fool?

Next thing you'll say is that Obama was not born in the United States.

 

[pikto99]

...

Next thing you'll say is that Obama was not born in the United States.

“AP- WASHINGTON D.C. -In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.
The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.”
“Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter...”
And btw, what did he do in Pakistan back in 80’s?

 

[Choripán]

“AP- WASHINGTON D.C. -In a move certain to fuel the debate over Obama's qualifications for the presidency, the group "Americans for Freedom of Information" has released copies of President Obama's college transcripts from Occidental College . Released today, the transcript school indicates that Obama, under the name Barry Soetoro, received financial aid as a foreign student from Indonesia as an undergraduate. The transcript was released by Occidental College in compliance with a court order in a suit brought by the group in the Superior Court of California.
The transcript shows that Obama (Soetoro) applied for financial aid and was awarded a fellowship for foreign students from the Fulbright Foundation Scholarship program. To qualify, for the scholarship, a student must claim foreign citizenship.”
“Gary Kreep of the United States Justice Foundation has released the results of their investigation of Obama's campaign spending. This study estimates that Obama has spent upwards of $950,000 in campaign funds in the past year with eleven law firms in 12 states for legal resources to block disclosure of any of his personal records. Mr. Kreep indicated that the investigation is still ongoing but that the final report will be provided to the U.S. Attorney general, Eric Holder. Mr. Holder has refused to comment on the matter...”
And btw, what did he do in Pakistan back in 80’s?

You know this was an April Fool's hoax, right?

So I'm thinking you're just a jokester with an adolescent sense of humor or you are indeed the dumbest human being south of the equator. Either way, a foolish waste of time. BigBadWolf - you too?

 

[bigbadwolf]

BigBadWolf - you too?

Didn't know it was a hoax. Thanked him because anything that sheds light on the mysterious and elusive Obama has to be good.

 

[jaredwb]

You are quite possibly the most uninformed person on this entire forum. And believe me that's quite an achievement. Classic right-winger mentality: make something up and then get pissed off about it. But in your case you make *everything* up and pitch a useless fit.

Not one thing you said in this post is true - all of it completely fabricated. Are you going out of your way to make sure that *everyone* thinks you're a moron? Why do I get the feeling that you spend a lot of time alone? Aren't you concerned that everyone can see that you are a fool?

Next thing you'll say is that Obama was not born in the United States.

Wow, how predictable was that. Instead of showing some facts or proving that what I said was incorrect, you resorted to calling me a "moron". Tough to prove that what I said was incorrect as it is all true.

And, no, I have no doubt that Obama was born in the U.S. And in fact, I kind of like him as a person, I just SEE through his actions and the legislation he is pushing for, AND the company that he keeps, that he has a left-wing, liberal "socialistic" agenda.

Now, if you want to debate that and prove me wrong, I'm all for a conversation. If you can do nothing more than call us "right-wingers" names...well, then you really aren't worth my time.

 

[Choripán]

Wow, how predictable was that. Instead of showing some facts or proving that what I said was incorrect, you resorted to calling me a "moron". Tough to prove that what I said was incorrect as it is all true.

And, no, I have no doubt that Obama was born in the U.S. And in fact, I kind of like him as a person, I just SEE through his actions and the legislation he is pushing for, AND the company that he keeps, that he has a left-wing, liberal "socialistic" agenda.

Now, if you want to debate that and prove me wrong, I'm all for a conversation. If you can do nothing more than call us "right-wingers" names...well, then you really aren't worth my time.

So *now* you're suddenly all about civility in public discourse??? Interesting. Because in the post I objected to you wrote:

• "WTF?? An "A-1" job? Are you mental or just in complete and utter denial of the facts?"

That doesn't seem so civil to me. Followed by:

• "...[Obama is] completely dividing the country in 2 while lying, stealing, and cheating with a smile..."

Not exactly charitable treatment!

Forgive me for calling you a moron. To be honest, I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. Again, your post was 100% factually wrong on every point. Even the most cursory research would have shown this to be the case. I made the assumption, apparently in error, that you simply don't know how to find out answers to questions. The alternative, of course, is that you were willfully misrepresenting the truth and thus guilty of intellectual dishonesty - something no one wants to be accused of in public!

Ok, since you asked for it, here's a point-by-point explanation of why a trigger-happy lefty might want to call you a moron:

1) "...raising our dept to 14 Trillion (more than the ALL the previous presidents COMBINED)..."

FALSE! Our national debt is a CUMULATIVE $14.5 trillion - i.e, precisely the RESULT of all previous presidents combined. That's what the word CUMULATIVE means. When Obama took office in January 2009 the Federal debt was $12.5 trillion, which means that it has grown about $2 trillion under his watch. Now, I'm no math major (just a lowly economist), but I'm pretty sure that the $12.5 trillion of debt inherited by Obama is SUBSTANTIALLY LARGER than the $2 trillion by which he has increased it. Am I wrong here? Isn't the number 12.5 greater than number 2? Of course, since you are not a moron, you should know the answer. But apparently not. Oh, and by the way, under Bush the national debt increased by over $6 trillion! How about that! It was BUSH who increased the federal debt more than anyone else in history (so far)!

2) "...passing a socialist healthcare bill that will turn the U.S. healthcare system into basically Venezuela and Argentina (and I just recently experience public "health" process here)"

FALSE! Our health CARE system - that is, the network doctors, nurses and hospitals - is not socialist! The system is completely private. And even our health INSURANCE system, which is the only thing ObamaCare addressed, isn't socialist, since there is still no public option and all insurance services are provided by private vendors. Is this in any way similar to Venezuela or Argentina? Not in the slightest. There are no government doctors or hospitals in America; there is no "government healthcare" apart from the VA and other military networks, which I'm assuming you're okay with. Right? Government-run battlefield health clinics aren't socialist? Or are they? Ugh, what a conundrum! Anyway, even the Medicare program is only an insurance program - there are no Medicare doctors or other providers. Given all of that, you clearly have no idea of what is even in the new legislation, nor have you bothered to try to understand it, which in my view is the responsibility of every citizen in a democratic society. The bottom line with ObamaCare is that you are now required to buy health insurance in America. That's pretty much it. Does it suck? In my view, yes and no, depending on how all sorts of other details emerge. But is it socialist? Only if you don't know what the word socialist means.

3) " ... AND that 68% of the people STILL reject..."

FALSE! A narrow majority of Americans (50%) support the new law, according to several independent survey research firms. See Gallup's recent poll for an example. Only about 40% oppose the bill. Why do I get the feeling you're going to respond to this fact with some kind of conspiracy theory rant about the liberal media distorting true public opinion?

4) "...and completely dividing the country in 2 while lying, stealing, and cheating with a smile..."

Are you seriously making the claim that America became divided *after* Obama was elected? Dude, where have you been? You seem to have forgotten what happened during the Bush years. The fact is that America has been polarizing increasingly since desegregation in the 1960s. That's when the right really started to radicalize (when they were forced to accept that ALL Americans are equal regardless of all the things conservatives get worked up about, like race, gender, sexual orientation and ethnicity). The current state of our sadly divided nation is a part of a much larger trend, one that can't really be pinned on any single individual, left or right, Bush or Obama. Of course, if you're one of the anti-desegregation types, then you may feel a little extra polarized by Mr. Obama living in the Big House...

All of that said, Mr. Jared W.B. Civility, can you point to a single instance where Obama has "lied" or "cheated," with or without a smile? You clearly fabricate both facts and insults for rhetorical purposes, something which tends to annoy those of us who actually believe that there is a truth out there. The smile part of the comment of course is accurate - let's face it, the dude's got a grille. So maybe you were only 99% wrong in your original post...

I'll leave it to others to decide whether you are a moron. Only one thing is certain: I have never met an intellectually honest conservative in my entire life. And now that includes you. The entire right-wing movement (and this often includes libertarians, I'm sorry to say) is built up from fake facts and fear-mongering of precisely the kind that you posted.

Sad, but true.

Your friend always, Choripán

 

[bigbadwolf]

All of that said, Mr. Jared W.B. Civility, can you point to a single instance where Obama has "lied" or "cheated," with or without a smile?

Agree with the (factual) contents of the rest of your post and have thanked you. However, a Democrat president usually has to be a bit more deceitful than a Republican one. The Republican is overtly on the side of the big interests and so there's less to hide (unless behind the camouflage and euphemism of "family values," "law and order," "fiscal responsibility," and so on). A Democrat is forced to be more disingenuous and wily: he serves the same interests but more of his votes come from the dispossessed, whom he purportedly serves. Hence the "triangulation." With Obama there was a lot of vague nonsense about "hope" and "change." Vague half-promises to which he cannot be held and which cannot unequivocally be called lies. But the intent to dupe and deceive was no doubt present.

Whole-heartedly agree with you that anyone seriously calling Obama a socialist has an IQ the wrong side of 60.

 

[Choripán]

Agree with the (factual) contents of the rest of your post and have thanked you. However, a Democrat president usually has to be a bit more deceitful than a Republican one. The Republican is overtly on the side of the big interests and so there's less to hide (unless behind the camouflage and euphemism of "family values," "law and order," "fiscal responsibility," and so on). A Democrat is forced to be more disingenuous and wily: he serves the same interests but more of his votes come from the dispossessed, whom he purportedly serves. Hence the "triangulation." With Obama there was a lot of vague nonsense about "hope" and "change." Vague half-promises to which he cannot be held and which cannot unequivocally be called lies. But the intent to dupe and deceive was no doubt present.

Whole-heartedly agree with you that anyone seriously calling Obama a socialist has an IQ the wrong side of 60.

Agreed. Maybe it all depends on what we mean by a political lie. I think most independent fact checker orgs would insist that the Republicans tend to twist the truth on particular claims more often than Dems. Which is not to say that Democrats don't do it - just not with the same regularity. The health care reform debate was really an excellent if depressing example. All the lies about death panels and forced abortions and the IRS showing up at your door with guns to put you in jail - amazing stuff if you think about it, especially for a simple insurance reform program. But at the same time pretty much standard fare for the Republican party these days.

Yet I guess your point is that there is also a larger sense of the word "lie" in American politics, one that goes well beyond the give and take of daily policy debates to the very moral heart of political discourse. And I couldn't agree with you more on this issue. I was not a supporter of Obama in the primaries for exactly the reasons you emphasize: vague nonsense about hope and change that in reality was nothing more than cotton candy marketing to an incredibly shallow and ill-informed young electorate. I remember thinking at the time that the campaign, often an opportunity for political education, was instead a complete waste: Obama has so much charisma and he refused to leverage any of it to teach the American public about the incredible challenge of governing an enormous and complex society like ours. Instead his followers think that we merely need to click our heels three times and wish all our problems away. No wonder they're starting to become disillusioned now; they were so illusioned to start with. Public policy is very very hard in a state (not a nation) of 300 million people whose only common cultural practice is insatiable consumerism.

If conservatives and liberals can be defined by their beliefs about inequality - how much of it is acceptable, and in which spheres of human life should it be accepted - then the larger lie goes to the Republicans. It's very risky to say, in public, that you believe that all persons were not born equal, that some people deserve more than others, that the lottery of birth and identity is irrelevant to fundamental questions of justice here and now. In America, with all of our hifalutin rhetoric of equal opportunity and equal freedom, you have to lie if you believe these things and want to hold public office (or even if you just want other people to like you). This is the point about intellectual dishonesty I was trying to make JaredWB in the earlier post. So in that sense the party that pursues even marginally more egalitarian policies is less dishonest than the others.

Which is not to say that it is honest...

But, my god, you are so right: the Democratic party is virtually 100% in the pocket of corporate America. Their policies are *at best* marginally more equitable than those of the Republicans. And for that small bit of fairness we pay an enormous service fee to the corporate hypocrites who on the one hand bitch incessantly about paying for government programs while on the other exploit every one of them for their own benefit at our expense. The recent health care legislation, ripped by the crazy right for being "socialist," is a perfect example: just another giant corporate sellout with a sloppy whitewash of progressivism covering the ugly reality of regressive wealth transfer that was the real purpose of the reform.

 

[jaredwb]

Agree with the (factual) contents of the rest of your post and have thanked you. However, a Democrat president usually has to be a bit more deceitful than a Republican one. The Republican is overtly on the side of the big interests and so there's less to hide (unless behind the camouflage and euphemism of "family values," "law and order," "fiscal responsibility," and so on). A Democrat is forced to be more disingenuous and wily: he serves the same interests but more of his votes come from the dispossessed, whom he purportedly serves. Hence the "triangulation." With Obama there was a lot of vague nonsense about "hope" and "change." Vague half-promises to which he cannot be held and which cannot unequivocally be called lies. But the intent to dupe and deceive was no doubt present.

Whole-heartedly agree with you that anyone seriously calling Obama a socialist has an IQ the wrong side of 60.

Maybe you need to go back and read what I wrote. I didn't call Obama a Socialist. I stated that his policies and agenda were socialist.

TO CHORIPAN: I just want to eat you up, I love choripans...with my moronic mentality and my "60" IQ (from bigbadwolf), I'm out of the city today on my campo that I purchased with my horrible, evil capitalistic, money hungry, greed.

I'll reply to you when I get back with the real facts of how you replied earlier. But kudos for actually coming back with a reply