Why Obama is failing

[gabosaurus]

My husband and I never talk about politics. But we happened upon the topic tonight after watching the news. We agreed that Obama is rapidly losing the support of the people who helped put him in office.
I am getting discouraged by Obama's continued attempts to achieve bipartisan support. This is particularly true of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama won over a lot of us by criticizing the war efforts and promising to end U.S. involvement. He promised withdrawals between 18 months and two years.
Now it appears that Obama has fallen under the spell of war-loving conservatives who feel the war effort should be enhanced instead of ended. Not that any of us should be surprised about a politician breaking his promise.

Obama's health care reforms are failing by trying to be too many things to too many people. And, again, by trying to reach across the aisle for bipartisan support, which will not happen.
In previous majority governments, legislation was jammed through by the party in power. No kowtowing, no apologies. Of course, that was before the advent of 24-hour news stations and single-party media outlets.

Obama needs to stop being too many things to too many people. He needs to get tougher and learn the Reagan method of "bullshit while you are smiling." That is why Reagan was so successful. He seemed so nice and sincere, no one realized that he was dealing all his dirty cards under the table.
Conversely, that is why Clinton and Dubya failed. Everyone could see through their bullshit.

Obama needs to stop screwing around with Fox and learn to ignore the media like Dubya. Perhaps plant some fake journalists to ask softball questions. Worked for his predecessor.

[HogTrash]

I pray for Obama's failure everyday, on every issue.

The simple truth is, if Obama succeeds America fails.

[emmett]

Hey Gab.....

What party outlet would you consider :

ABC -
NBC -
CNN -
MSN -
CBS -
BBC -

etc
etc
etc
etc


Soft questions????????? ROFLMAO. Obama? LOL.
He's neveer answered a question! He won;t face Fox because he is a coward

[Kathianne]

My husband and I never talk about politics. But we happened upon the topic tonight after watching the news. We agreed that Obama is rapidly losing the support of the people who helped put him in office.
I am getting discouraged by Obama's continued attempts to achieve bipartisan support. This is particularly true of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama won over a lot of us by criticizing the war efforts and promising to end U.S. involvement. He promised withdrawals between 18 months and two years.
Now it appears that Obama has fallen under the spell of war-loving conservatives who feel the war effort should be enhanced instead of ended. Not that any of us should be surprised about a politician breaking his promise.

Obama's health care reforms are failing by trying to be too many things to too many people. And, again, by trying to reach across the aisle for bipartisan support, which will not happen.
In previous majority governments, legislation was jammed through by the party in power. No kowtowing, no apologies. Of course, that was before the advent of 24-hour news stations and single-party media outlets.

Obama needs to stop being too many things to too many people. He needs to get tougher and learn the Reagan method of "bullshit while you are smiling." That is why Reagan was so successful. He seemed so nice and sincere, no one realized that he was dealing all his dirty cards under the table.
Conversely, that is why Clinton and Dubya failed. Everyone could see through their bullshit.

Obama needs to stop screwing around with Fox and learn to ignore the media like Dubya. Perhaps plant some fake journalists to ask softball questions. Worked for his predecessor.

Did you really listen to Obama, when he told you?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3vpCBpTbEds

[Trigg]

Obama's health care reforms are failing by trying to be too many things to too many people. And, again, by trying to reach across the aisle for bipartisan support, which will not happen.
In previous majority governments, legislation was jammed through by the party in power. No kowtowing, no apologies. Of course, that was before the advent of 24-hour news stations and single-party media outlets.

Obama needs to stop being too many things to too many people.

The sad thing is you actually believe the BS you type.

Bambam can't get healthcare passed because the DEMOCRATES won't get behind it. They KNOW they face being defeated in their next election if they push through unpopular healthcare changes. They have enough votes, they don't need ANY republicans to come to their side. Watch Hardball, that's all he talks about, Dems don't have the votes to push this through.

As far as the war is concerned. He is now getting the information that McCain already had when he campained. Bambam is just now realizing that he has to pull out slowly. This also has nothing to do with listening to "warmongering" republicans. HE PICKED HIS OWN GENERAL that is who he's getting his information from.

With a majority in the house and senate and his Czars running everything else he is going to have to eventually stop blaiming all his problems on "evil" republicans.

[stephanie]

So, am I reading this right? she is saying that the little Marxist should just ignore the rest of the people who didn't vote for him and just stomp on them to pass whatever the hell he wishes..I didn't know we now have a dictator instead of a President...though the man-boy thug in chief fancies himself a Hugo Chavez..and see our country going the same way as Venezuela..

I guess they don't call it the Obamanation for nothing.:laugh2:

[crin63]

If Obama wants bi-partisan support its only so he, his party and their press corp can blame the inevitable failures on Republicans later.

Obama doesn't need bi-partisan support as mentioned previously, he just cant his own party to go along with his trash America first agenda.

The Dims were all screaming that the focus should be on Afghanistan and not Iraq until now. Now they want to cut & run so that the Taliban and Al Quaeda can go back in to execute everyone who didn't actively resist America.

My friends son was going to be a career Marine 6 months ago but now that he has seen that Obama will use the Marines as political fodder and is giving them no support at all he isn't even going to re-enlist.

[avatar4321]

Obama promised to pull out of Iraq. He said he would support a stronger effort in Aghanistan. Now that he has the opportunity he is waivering. He has never, to my knowledge, promised to end the war in Afghanistan. The idea that he is suddenly war crazy when he promised to continue that effort and backs down is completely absurd.

[gabosaurus]

Obama has always wavered on Afghanistan. He promised to "finish the fight." Which meant either getting out or putting more troops in.
I think Obama has picked the wrong team of advisers on the war. He chose generals who didn't agree with his core views in the first place.
The reason that Dems are peeling off the health care issue is that Obama won't stand firm on any set of issues. He hasn't picked his battles very well.

When Dubya was president, Fox News was all about supporting the president in times of crisis. How the office of the president symbolized America and the American people. You never heard a sour voice about Dubya.
That has all changed now that Obama is in the White House. The news is pretty much 100 percent negative about the presidency. All of the sudden, the office of the president no longer represents the American people.
Face it, Fox News is the mouthpiece of the Republican Party. The commentators are ConReps, the analysts are ConReps, the sources are ConReps.
You listen to the alleged "liberal media" and it is full of news critical of Obama and the Dems. In the same manner it was critical of Dubya. Fox was never critical of Dubya.
Fox is a GOP news source. Same way that Talk radio is all GOP.
A lot of stupid people watch TV. They believe what they see, BS or not.

[NightTrain]

What did you expect?

We all knew he had no experience, only feel-good slogans that appealed to the naive that voted for him.


I think Obama has picked the wrong team of advisers on the war. He chose generals who didn't agree with his core views in the first place.

A liberal American General? I just sprayed coffee all over my monitor, dammit! :laugh2:

[Trigg]

Obama has always wavered on Afghanistan. He promised to "finish the fight." Which meant either getting out or putting more troops in.
I think Obama has picked the wrong team of advisers on the war. He chose generals who didn't agree with his core views in the first place.
The reason that Dems are peeling off the health care issue is that Obama won't stand firm on any set of issues. He hasn't picked his battles very well.

When Dubya was president, Fox News was all about supporting the president in times of crisis. How the office of the president symbolized America and the American people. You never heard a sour voice about Dubya.
That has all changed now that Obama is in the White House. The news is pretty much 100 percent negative about the presidency. All of the sudden, the office of the president no longer represents the American people.
Face it, Fox News is the mouthpiece of the Republican Party. The commentators are ConReps, the analysts are ConReps, the sources are ConReps.
You listen to the alleged "liberal media" and it is full of news critical of Obama and the Dems. In the same manner it was critical of Dubya. Fox was never critical of Dubya.
Fox is a GOP news source. Same way that Talk radio is all GOP.
A lot of stupid people watch TV. They believe what they see, BS or not.

The reason dems won't agree on healthcare is the PUBLIC OPTION, they're loosing moderate dems.

WHAT MEDIA OUTLETS ARE YOU WATCHING???????? MSNBC had a "tingle" up their leg about bambam for MONTHS. They're still 90% pro Obama on ANY issue. Olberman, Mathews and Maddow can't praise obama enough in one day.

O'Reilly has always been fair IMHO and was against Bush on a number of issues. Hannity and Colmbs was split down the middle.

FOX's numbers are WAY WAY up because they present both sides of a story, unlike MSNBC and CBS who are so pro Obama is sickening.

[Sitarro]

Obama has always wavered on Afghanistan. He promised to "finish the fight." Which meant either getting out or putting more troops in.
I think Obama has picked the wrong team of advisers on the war. He chose generals who didn't agree with his core views in the first place.
The reason that Dems are peeling off the health care issue is that Obama won't stand firm on any set of issues. He hasn't picked his battles very well.

When Dubya was president, Fox News was all about supporting the president in times of crisis. How the office of the president symbolized America and the American people. You never heard a sour voice about Dubya.
That has all changed now that Obama is in the White House. The news is pretty much 100 percent negative about the presidency. All of the sudden, the office of the president no longer represents the American people.
Face it, Fox News is the mouthpiece of the Republican Party. The commentators are ConReps, the analysts are ConReps, the sources are ConReps.
You listen to the alleged "liberal media" and it is full of news critical of Obama and the Dems. In the same manner it was critical of Dubya. Fox was never critical of Dubya.
Fox is a GOP news source. Same way that Talk radio is all GOP.
A lot of stupid people watch TV. They believe what they see, BS or not.

With this post you have proven that you have never really watched FOX and are just a parrot for the left.......... or........... you're an idiot, or both?

[Little-Acorn]

.

Obama is failing because the American people - including many who voted for him - are finally finding out just what "change" he actually intends for us.

.

[Jeff]

First Obama promised while campaigning to have the troops home from Iraq in 3 months not 18, the 18 came after he was in office already, it is simple he is failing cause he is a liar, the dems put him in office knowing he is a good salesman, He thought he was really going to be a President, LOL, ya right jr. senator to prez, he has no experiences in anything other than being a liar and he does it well, so the dems thought he could push there agendas , Obama had different ideas, there is the reason for his failure

For those who think I am wrong here is a link to Obama's promises and scandals

http://conservativeamerican.org/obama-administration-scandals-list/page-eight-351-400/

[Kathianne]

Obama has always wavered on Afghanistan. He promised to "finish the fight." Which meant either getting out or putting more troops in.
I think Obama has picked the wrong team of advisers on the war. He chose generals who didn't agree with his core views in the first place.
The reason that Dems are peeling off the health care issue is that Obama won't stand firm on any set of issues. He hasn't picked his battles very well.

When Dubya was president, Fox News was all about supporting the president in times of crisis. How the office of the president symbolized America and the American people. You never heard a sour voice about Dubya.
That has all changed now that Obama is in the White House. The news is pretty much 100 percent negative about the presidency. All of the sudden, the office of the president no longer represents the American people.
Face it, Fox News is the mouthpiece of the Republican Party. The commentators are ConReps, the analysts are ConReps, the sources are ConReps.
You listen to the alleged "liberal media" and it is full of news critical of Obama and the Dems. In the same manner it was critical of Dubya. Fox was never critical of Dubya.
Fox is a GOP news source. Same way that Talk radio is all GOP.
A lot of stupid people watch TV. They believe what they see, BS or not.

See the video above, Gabby. 7/15/2088 Woodrow Wilson International Center: "The central front in the war on terror is not Iraq, and it never was. That's why the second goal of my new strategy will be taking the fight to al Queda in Afghanistan and Pakistan..."..."...this is a war we have to win..."I will send at least two additional combat brigades into Afghanistan."

[CSM]

My husband and I never talk about politics. But we happened upon the topic tonight after watching the news. We agreed that Obama is rapidly losing the support of the people who helped put him in office.
I am getting discouraged by Obama's continued attempts to achieve bipartisan support. This is particularly true of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama won over a lot of us by criticizing the war efforts and promising to end U.S. involvement. He promised withdrawals between 18 months and two years.
Now it appears that Obama has fallen under the spell of war-loving conservatives who feel the war effort should be enhanced instead of ended. Not that any of us should be surprised about a politician breaking his promise.

Obama's health care reforms are failing by trying to be too many things to too many people. And, again, by trying to reach across the aisle for bipartisan support, which will not happen.
In previous majority governments, legislation was jammed through by the party in power. No kowtowing, no apologies. Of course, that was before the advent of 24-hour news stations and single-party media outlets.

Obama needs to stop being too many things to too many people. He needs to get tougher and learn the Reagan method of "bullshit while you are smiling." That is why Reagan was so successful. He seemed so nice and sincere, no one realized that he was dealing all his dirty cards under the table.
Conversely, that is why Clinton and Dubya failed. Everyone could see through their bullshit.

Obama needs to stop screwing around with Fox and learn to ignore the media like Dubya. Perhaps plant some fake journalists to ask softball questions. Worked for his predecessor.

HOLY CRAP! So Gabby is proposing that Obama adopt the tactics that she professes to hate when they were employed by Bush???? If that doesn't highlight the hypocritical stance of the left nothing else will!

[stephanie]

I'd still like to know how she knows how Reagan governed when she wasn't even born then...sorry little one but that cracks me up..

[Missileman]

My husband and I never talk about politics. But we happened upon the topic tonight after watching the news. We agreed that Obama is rapidly losing the support of the people who helped put him in office.
I am getting discouraged by Obama's continued attempts to achieve bipartisan support. This is particularly true of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama won over a lot of us by criticizing the war efforts and promising to end U.S. involvement. He promised withdrawals between 18 months and two years.
Now it appears that Obama has fallen under the spell of war-loving conservatives who feel the war effort should be enhanced instead of ended. Not that any of us should be surprised about a politician breaking his promise.

Obama's health care reforms are failing by trying to be too many things to too many people. And, again, by trying to reach across the aisle for bipartisan support, which will not happen.
In previous majority governments, legislation was jammed through by the party in power. No kowtowing, no apologies. Of course, that was before the advent of 24-hour news stations and single-party media outlets.

Obama needs to stop being too many things to too many people. He needs to get tougher and learn the Reagan method of "bullshit while you are smiling." That is why Reagan was so successful. He seemed so nice and sincere, no one realized that he was dealing all his dirty cards under the table.
Conversely, that is why Clinton and Dubya failed. Everyone could see through their bullshit.

Obama needs to stop screwing around with Fox and learn to ignore the media like Dubya. Perhaps plant some fake journalists to ask softball questions. Worked for his predecessor.

You liberals are very fond of overlooking the obvious. Obama is failing because he wasn't, and still isn't, qualified to be president. He's a talker, not a doer. He's never run anything so he has no experience on what to do when things don't go smoothly. AND, he the world's worst prioritizer. Ten percent of Americans out of work and he's making a speech about education today.

[gabosaurus]

You liberals are very fond of overlooking the obvious. Obama is failing because he wasn't, and still isn't, qualified to be president. He's a talker, not a doer. He's never run anything so he has no experience on what to do when things don't go smoothly. AND, he the world's worst prioritizer. Ten percent of Americans out of work and he's making a speech about education today.

Dubya wasn't qualified to be president either. Look at how he fucked up the country.
Education is the No. 1 priority in this country, according to many of us. You can't just focus on one issue. That is where Dubya screwed up. He was so singularly focused on Iraq and his mythical "War on Terror" that he allowed the rest of the country to go to pot.


I'd still like to know how she knows how Reagan governed when she wasn't even born then...sorry little one but that cracks me up..

History is best viewed in hindsight. Reagan was much more of a "cult of personality" than Obama is now. Reagan fooled so many people with his "folksy charm" that few recognized what a lying and cheating con artist he was.

[Kathianne]

Dubya wasn't qualified to be president either. Look at how he fucked up the country.
Education is the No. 1 priority in this country, according to many of us. You can't just focus on one issue. That is where Dubya screwed up. He was so singularly focused on Iraq and his mythical "War on Terror" that he allowed the rest of the country to go to pot.



History is best viewed in hindsight. Reagan was much more of a "cult of personality" than Obama is now. Reagan fooled so many people with his "folksy charm" that few recognized what a lying and cheating con artist he was.

Well except him and Teddy getting together on NCLB, which sucked. Yet, it's certainly what had been called for in years previous, probably by the likes of yourself. Unintended consequences.

[stephanie]

Dubya wasn't qualified to be president either. Look at how he fucked up the country.
Education is the No. 1 priority in this country, according to many of us. You can't just focus on one issue. That is where Dubya screwed up. He was so singularly focused on Iraq and his mythical "War on Terror" that he allowed the rest of the country to go to pot.



History is best viewed in hindsight. Reagan was much more of a "cult of personality" than Obama is now. Reagan fooled so many people with his "folksy charm" that few recognized what a lying and cheating con artist he was.

How would you know Reagan was a lying and cheating con artist? I would think you would have to live through his Presidency to make a judgement on that, so you are just repeating what all your lefty friends told I suppose..
At least Reagan had EXPERIENCE and so did Bush, they were both Governors of a state before they were elected President...the little Marxist was a Community organizer and a junior Senator, then you all ask why he is FAILING..he has no direction except what his commie puppeteers tell him, then he goes out with his trusty teleprompter and repeats what they tell him..he will be bringing up the rear as one of the worst Presidents we have had and who knows he just might win that one over Carter..nice job you all did, thanks for nothing..

[Joyful HoneyBee]

Dubya wasn't qualified to be president either. Look at how he fucked up the country.
Education is the No. 1 priority in this country, according to many of us. You can't just focus on one issue. That is where Dubya screwed up. He was so singularly focused on Iraq and his mythical "War on Terror" that he allowed the rest of the country to go to pot.

History is best viewed in hindsight. Reagan was much more of a "cult of personality" than Obama is now. Reagan fooled so many people with his "folksy charm" that few recognized what a lying and cheating con artist he was.

his mythical "War on Terror" WHAT? What mythical war on terror are you talking about Gabby?

I truly cannot fathom that you are really so sheltered that you are unaware there are radical extremists around the world who want to kill westerners and everyone who has anything to do with them. It would behoove you to do some research into this matter and you can do so by visiting these sites:

http://www.obsessionthemovie.com/

http://www.thethirdjihad.com/

You can also google the terms "radical extremists" and come up with some interesting history lessons. This, my dear, is not mythology...it is real life, up close and personal, very much in the face of everyone who loves freedom, liberty and life.

As for warmongering, the post from Jeff with the link, the one Kathianne encouraged you to view, depicts the position Obama held prior to being sworn in, yet now he is wavering, while we have troops in harms way, the sons and daughters of American mothers and fathers, stuck in a hellhole and unsure if they'll get the appropriate support they need. Obama selected his own general, and then seems to have turned a deaf ear to him. No mother of a soldier wants her child sent into a place like Afghanistan (it matters not if that child is 18 or 58), but if the powers that be deem it necessary, then dammit, send enough of them to make a difference. This is the part that Obama cannot seem to come to terms with...he would rather trickle them in, let that batch get battered and broken, then send some more.
I still have no problem whatsoever with the proposal Emmett laid out months ago, bring 'em all home - all at once - give fair warning to the people who don't support the terrorists to turn over the villains or suffer the consequences.

Obama has a lot to learn about the world, about human nature, about how to do his job.......and sadly for us all, and especially for our brave soldiers....he is getting on the job training at 1600 PA Ave. on our dimes. Talk about a high price for education....we're all paying for his education now.

Tsk Tsk and shame on voters for believing in pipe dreams this time last year.

[Pericles]

You liberals are very fond of overlooking the obvious. Obama is failing because he wasn't, and still isn't, qualified to be president. He's a talker, not a doer. He's never run anything so he has no experience on what to do when things don't go smoothly. AND, he the world's worst prioritizer. Ten percent of Americans out of work and he's making a speech about education today.

You tea-partiers have no patience, or long-term perspective. The president is doing about as good a job as could be done, under the circumstances. No matter; all great presidents had know-nothing critics in their time. You guys are just fulfilling that role.

I'm surprised you're still reaching for that "he has no experience" line. This, from people who have seriously entertained the prospect of president Palin. It's like Rush calling somebody else a narcissist. Do you folks ever look in the mirror?

[sgtdmski]

I really want to know why Obama is failing, I have yet to hear a reason from any of his supporters. What is his problem?

There are 58 US Senators in the US Senate that are from the same party as him. With two independents that lean liberal, in fact, if I am not mistaken they were both previously in his party, that gives him a total of 60 in the Senate, enough for the Senate to easily vote cloture on any bill.

In the House there are 257 of 435 members that are from the same party as the President, while not enough to overcome a Presidential veto, more than enough to pass any legislation put before them, remember House and Senate have different rules. So what is the problem. I tell you what I said earlier it is that the party in power right now is running the Cowards of the Congress.

dmk

So what is the problem, he has the votes, why is any bill in trouble??? What are Pelosi and Reid doing can they not take control of the members, and for that matter what is the President doing? He is the leader of the party, how come he cannot get his members in line.

All that talk about hope and change, the only change we are seeing is that the party in Power being unable to get work accomplished not because of the party not in power, but because of their own party. Well what can you expect from the Democrats, they got good at blocking legislation when they were not the party in power, no wonder they seem to be continuing the tradition.

dmk

[stephanie]

You tea-partiers have no patience, or long-term perspective. The president is doing about as good a job as could be done, under the circumstances. No matter; all great presidents had know-nothing critics in their time. You guys are just fulfilling that role.

I'm surprised you're still reaching for that "he has no experience" line. This, from people who have seriously entertained the prospect of president Palin. It's like Rush calling somebody else a narcissist. Do you folks ever look in the mirror?

Sarah Palin even has more experience than the little Marxist in chief, you Obamabots can't seem to wrap your head around that, can ya. and if you think we who didn't vote for him are going to just sit by while he entertains radical American haters, black panthers, Union crooks, and try to shove a hostile takeover of our health care system on us, think again. we will sit by as much as the anti-war protesters and the Democrats in Congress did when Bush was in office..so theres the mirror..look into it.

[Pericles]

I really want to know why Obama is failing, I have yet to hear a reason from any of his supporters. What is his problem?

Umm, that "problem" would be democracy. The Democrats, true to their name, are not straight-jacketed ideologues like Republicans since Gingrich have been. There's real ideological diversity amongst us. That's good for any party, and by extension good for the country. Since it imparts a sense of what is politically realistic going forward, no matter what piece of legislation is being considered. It's why the Democrats are the natural party of government.


There are 58 US Senators in the US Senate that are from the same party as him. With two independents that lean liberal, in fact, if I am not mistaken they were both previously in his party, that gives him a total of 60 in the Senate, enough for the Senate to easily vote cloture on any bill.

Bi-partisanship is a foreign language to the Cons. But anyone who knows something about political science, knows that healthy democracies require compromise between the interested factions, especially when it comes to epoch-making legislation. Partly for political cover, and partly because we recognize that strict one-party rule isn't a healthy thing, we want to enlist at least some GOP support for what we are doing. It's a salutary contrast with the Bush-era Republicans, who abicated their role as a equal branch of government, to rubber-stamp all of Bush's spending.


In the House there are 257 of 435 members that are from the same party as the President, while not enough to overcome a Presidential veto, more than enough to pass any legislation put before them, remember House and Senate have different rules. So what is the problem. I tell you what I said earlier it is that the party in power right now is running the Cowards of the Congress.

That's because the Con's whole ideal of the exercise of power, tends more towards the autocratic than the democratic. You're the ones who are claiming (unconstitutionally) the power of the 'Unitary Executive.' You're the ones who place obedience and party loyalty before all else.


So what is the problem... He is the leader of the party, how come he cannot get his members in line.

Thank you for underscoring my last point. Anyway, for those who are paying attention, there is no problem with the legislation. It's a big beast, a long bill, but we have been steadily working on it. It's basically finished, except for dispute about the public option. The health care bill is a revolutionary piece of legislation, even without the option. And there's dispute about that, because the party of No Compromise has, ironically, strenghtened the hand of the Liberal Democrats who are demanding the inclusion of the Option. But, with or without the Option (which we can always go back and add later), this bill is going to happen - you can take that to the bank.

[Pericles]

Sarah Palin even has more experience than the little Marxist in chief, you Obamabots can't seem to wrap your head around that, can ya. and if you think we who didn't vote for him are going to just sit by while he entertains radical American haters, black panthers, Union crooks, and try to shove a hostile takeover of our health care system on us, think again. we will sit by as much as the anti-war protesters and the Democrats in Congress did when Bush was in office..so theres the mirror..look into it.

Typical. If this is the quality of how you Cons actually think, you're going to be in the wilderness for a long time....

[stephanie]

Typical. If this is the quality of how you Cons actually think, you're going to be in the wilderness for a long time....

Yawn, the same ole same ole..look at the latest elections, this is just a start and it's only been one year since the little Marxist became President..his poll numbers and the Democrats-Progressive parties has dropped 30% since the election...so what party is going into that wilderness? or as I like to say, swirling down the toilet..where they belong..:laugh2:

[Nukeman]

Umm, that "problem" would be democracy. The Democrats, true to their name, are not straight-jacketed ideologues like Republicans since Gingrich have been. There's real ideological diversity amongst us. That's good for any party, and by extension good for the country. Since it imparts a sense of what is politically realistic going forward, no matter what piece of legislation is being considered. It's why the Democrats are the natural party of government. .
You are soo full of it in this statement. Dems have always toed the party line... conservatives have called for LESS government intrusion in our lives and you have called for more.... Dem are natural politicians due to the fact they want to run EVERY aspect of our lives and to keep themselves in a position of power over the masses...




Bi-partisanship is a foreign language to the Cons. But anyone who knows something about political science, knows that healthy democracies require compromise between the interested factions, especially when it comes to epoch-making legislation. Partly for political cover, and partly because we recognize that strict one-party rule isn't a healthy thing, we want to enlist at least some GOP support for what we are doing. It's a salutary contrast with the Bush-era Republicans, who abicated their role as a equal branch of government, to rubber-stamp all of Bush's spending.
Where the hell was YOUR compromise for the last 8 years. YOU and your ilk scream now that the republicans aren't palying fair and wont help. Once again where was all this compromise and help for the last 8 years????



That's because the Con's whole ideal of the exercise of power, tends more towards the autocratic than the democratic. You're the ones who are claiming (unconstitutionally) the power of the 'Unitary Executive.' You're the ones who place obedience and party loyalty before all else.
Oh My God i don't even know where to start with that your soo wrong. EVERY politician in office as we speak are the new "royalty" they are all the new autocrats. They feel entiteld to the power they have and the unwashed masses can just eat cake!!!!!!!!! EVERY POLITICIAN in Washington is like this now EVERYONE inluding the DEMS......



Thank you for underscoring my last point. Anyway, for those who are paying attention, there is no problem with the legislation. It's a big beast, a long bill, but we have been steadily working on it. It's basically finished, except for dispute about the public option. The health care bill is a revolutionary piece of legislation, even without the option. And there's dispute about that, because the party of No Compromise has, ironically, strenghtened the hand of the Liberal Democrats who are demanding the inclusion of the Option. But, with or without the Option (which we can always go back and add later), this bill is going to happen - you can take that to the bankReally no problem with the legislation only the fact that the way it currently stands if you lose your insurance you will have to wait 6 months without before you can go on the governments form, You will by default pay more for you medical supplies and equipment due to an increase of 20-40 billion in new taxes on that equipment. If your as smart as you claim to be you will know that NO company pays their taxes they pass it on to the consumer!!!!!!!!!!!

There are a number of problems with the bill that are too numours to list, one of the most promonent would be the fact that they didn't even attempt to take on Tort reform. Why is that pereclise?? isi it because the trial lawyeres have a better lobbiest group or the fact that most politicians are also lawyeres and are looking out for their brethren...????

This bill is far from "revolutionary" it take the bad from every single socialized country out ther and rolls it into one monsterous bill that NO ONE can possible understand...

There are some very simple things that can take place to ensure that everyone has access to health care and it does not need the gov't taking over and distroying the US health care system....

[Pericles]

You are soo full of it in this statement. Dems have always toed the party line... conservatives have called for LESS government intrusion in our lives and you have called for more....

Yeah, truth hurts, I get it. Conservatives love to "call" for less gov't, but never seem to deliver... wonder why? Talk of "fiscal responsibility" is great while you're a candidate, but almost nobody votes against spending for their district or their state. The only ideology of conservatives is hypocrisy.


Where the hell was YOUR compromise for the last 8 years. YOU and your ilk scream now that the republicans aren't palying fair and wont help. Once again where was all this compromise and help for the last 8 years????

The most egregious compromise we made, was Iraq war authorization.


Oh My God i don't even know where to start with that your soo wrong. EVERY politician in office as we speak are the new "royalty" they are all the new autocrats. They feel entiteld to the power they have and the unwashed masses can just eat cake!!!!!!!!! EVERY POLITICIAN in Washington is like this now EVERYONE inluding the DEMS......

Have you ever thought for yourself? What you're saying is the typical populist line... unchanged after more than a hundred years. Your caricature of our democracy, is valid only for people who don't pay attention to the reality of the work that goes on in the Capitol.


Really no problem with the legislation only the fact that the way it currently stands if you lose your insurance you will have to wait 6 months without before you can go on the governments form, You will by default pay more for you medical supplies and equipment due to an increase of 20-40 billion in new taxes on that equipment. If your as smart as you claim to be you will know that NO company pays their taxes they pass it on to the consumer!!!!!!!!!!!

Sounds like a lot of insurance-company talking points and misinformation.


There are some very simple things that can take place to ensure that everyone has access to health care and it does not need the gov't taking over and distroying the US health care system....

Alright, enlighten us.

[Sir Evil]

Because he's a democrat & black? :dunno:
:gives:

[Nukeman]

Yeah, truth hurts, I get it. Conservatives love to "call" for less gov't, but never seem to deliver... wonder why? Talk of "fiscal responsibility" is great while you're a candidate, but almost nobody votes against spending for their district or their state. The only ideology of conservatives is hypocrisy. .Truth???? What truth. Just because someone list thiemselves as a conservative does not make them one. ALL politicians are guilty of over spending. I will not argue with you about the fact that reps are just as bad as dems when it comes to spending, I would appreciate if you would as well concede that the dems do no better and infact in many cases do worse.





The most egregious compromise we made, was Iraq war authorization. Bullshit!!!!! they had the exact same intelligence that the president had. there was NO compromise they voted with the same information the rest of the world had. Nice attempt at defelction though!!!!!!!!!




Have you ever thought for yourself? What you're saying is the typical populist line... unchanged after more than a hundred years. Your caricature of our democracy, is valid only for people who don't pay attention to the reality of the work that goes on in the Capitol.
It's apopulist line for a reason. Yes I thin for myself I do it every day!! Do you?? politics stopped being about the people when it became a "JOB" when our politicians stopped actually caring about the people and started caring more about reelection is when it turned horribly wrong. Ohh by the way last I checked we are supposed to be a "Republic"!!!


Sounds like a lot of insurance-company talking points and misinformation. Why do you think Evan Bayh is against this bill, it would distroy the economy in Indiana, the orthopecdic capital of the world. The biggest players in implantable devices would see an extra tax of over 20billion in Indiana alone. Would you refute that with facts if you can (I'm not going to hold my breath becasue it is true)



Alright, enlighten usInstead of overhauling the whole system lets start by having tort reform against frivilous lawsuits. Open up the free market for insurance companies to cross state lines.

If the gov't is hell bent on getting into the health care of everyone, they can set up clinics and imaging centers in every town staffed by new physicians who have recently graduated, give them a reduced salary and forgive their student loans for so many years of service. You could offer the same incentive to EVERY nurse, rad tech, lab tech, etc..etc...etc.. You would essentialy be setting up a nation wide free clinic system for people without insurance and the health care system could actually get back in line with thier cost since they wouldn't have to write off millions of dollars of bad debt every year. Porto Rico already does something similar to this by forgiving loans if you work in the low income and poverty stricken areas.

Instead of trying to rush and cram a faulty plan through why are we not looking at ways to ACTUALLY fix the problems that are there. This is nothing more than a government plan to take over 6% of the GDP........

[Pericles]

ALL politicians are guilty of over spending.

Hey, I'm a Democrat. I don't have a problem with government spending, as long as it's paid for, with taxes for example! It's the Cons who have taught Americans that supply-side economics gives them a free lunch: lower taxes, higher spending.


Bullshit!!!!! they had the exact same intelligence that the president had.

First of all, if Al Gore was president, there would have been no Iraq invasion. "The intelligence" was in fact a good deal more ambiguous and uncertain than is commonly understood. But the Bush admin. cherry-picked the intel in order to paint the picture of the threat that they wanted to paint. Even Republican senators privately complained that they were being railroaded. And in a conference with senators before the vote, one of the Democrat senators started to quiz Bush about the actual state of the Iraqi threat, and Bush snapped back: "I'm not here to discuss it. I want your vote."

Never mind also that there was an election the next month, and Rove and his deputies were politicizing 9/11, despicably leveraging it for their political advantage. In that kind of climate - just a year after 9/11 - the Democrats were under servere pressure to kowtow to Bush. We gave him his war. Don't you dare come with that lie that we didn't work with him.


there was NO compromise they voted with the same information the rest of the world had. Nice attempt at defelction though!!!!!!!!!

The CIA had better intel on Iraq than any of our allies. The CIA didn't think they had the goods on Sadaam; but the Vice President twisted arms and got the agency to endorse his vision of the threat. The line about yellowcake uranium in Bush's State of the Union was a baldfaced lie - Bush kept the line, even after the CIA said explicitly that it was an unsupported claim.

Not only that, but the Democrats under Pelosi could have pulled the plug on your war, but we didn't. We enabled you with a policy choice that has cost American lives. We are trying to craft policy - national health care - that will save American lives, and you want nothing to do with it.

The fact is that you right-wing radicals have taken over the party. Deep down, you don't believe in dissent. You just want to rule.


It's apopulist line for a reason. Yes I thin for myself I do it every day!! Do you?? politics stopped being about the people when it became a "JOB" when our politicians stopped actually caring about the people and started caring more about reelection is when it turned horribly wrong. Ohh by the way last I checked we are supposed to be a "Republic"!!!

Well, populists are pretty much know-nothings (always have been) when it comes to the real-world complexities of governing a Republic of our size. The complaints you're making go back more than a hundered years. Guess the country's been declining for a long time then - through two world wars, a cold war, high average economic growth, etc. I would suggest you think before you actually complain.


Why do you think Evan Bayh is against this bill, it would distroy the economy in Indiana, the orthopecdic capital of the world. The biggest players in implantable devices would see an extra tax of over 20billion in Indiana alone. Would you refute that with facts if you can (I'm not going to hold my breath becasue it is true)

It is inevitable that with a reform of this size and scope, not everybody's going to be happy. That's no excuse for doing nothing.


Instead of overhauling the whole system lets start by having tort reform against frivilous lawsuits. Open up the free market for insurance companies to cross state lines.

The vast majority of frivolous lawsuits are thrown out. The evidence shows that the cost to the system of payouts on such torts, is an almost negligible fraction of rising health costs. I'm all for tort reform; but it is easier said than done.

The insurance companies are businesses - they make money by denying care, get it? Besides, there are two obvious problems with competition when it comes to health insurance. The first is regulatory hurdles and costs. The fact that insurance companies deny claims on any possible pretext is a plain fact; when the competition increases, they will have even more incentive to do that, not less. And it's much harder, and more costly, for a policy-holder to try and bring suit against an out-of-state company, than one in their own state.

The second is, that the whole concept of insurance involves pooling risk. An insurer is able to afford big payouts, because a large population of healthy people are paying in. You need actually a substantial number of healthy people in a given pool in order for it to work. But a proliferation of insurance providers of necessity shrinks that pool for each one of them. So the pressure then comes on each of them, to make sure that the people that they do have as policy-holders, are not going to get sick. More competition in insurance basically only works if you're young, healthy, or lucky.


If the gov't is hell bent on getting into the health care of everyone, they can set up clinics and imaging centers in every town staffed by new physicians who have recently graduated, give them a reduced salary and forgive their student loans for so many years of service. You could offer the same incentive to EVERY nurse, rad tech, lab tech, etc..etc...etc.. You would essentialy be setting up a nation wide free clinic system for people without insurance and the health care system could actually get back in line with thier cost since they wouldn't have to write off millions of dollars of bad debt every year. Porto Rico already does something similar to this by forgiving loans if you work in the low income and poverty stricken areas.

Sounds like an idea worth considering. I'm surprised you're endorsing it, though. It sounds way more generous than a typical conservative is inclined to be.


Instead of trying to rush and cram a faulty plan through why are we not looking at ways to ACTUALLY fix the problems that are there. This is nothing more than a government plan to take over 6% of the GDP........

Look, while we were out of power, we spent years thinking about this. We're moving quickly, now, because we prepared. Personally, I have no problem with the government taking over the provision of health care services. We spend more money on the military; I don't see anybody complaining about how we need the private sector to replace the U.S. army.

[Trigg]

Hey, I'm a Democrat. I don't have a problem with government spending, as long as it's paid for, with taxes for example! It's the Cons who have taught Americans that supply-side economics gives them a free lunch: lower taxes, higher spending.



First of all, if Al Gore was president, there would have been no Iraq invasion. "The intelligence" was in fact a good deal more ambiguous and uncertain than is commonly understood. But the Bush admin. cherry-picked the intel in order to paint the picture of the threat that they wanted to paint. Even Republican senators privately complained that they were being railroaded. And in a conference with senators before the vote, one of the Democrat senators started to quiz Bush about the actual state of the Iraqi threat, and Bush snapped back: "I'm not here to discuss it. I want your vote."

Never mind also that there was an election the next month, and Rove and his deputies were politicizing 9/11, despicably leveraging it for their political advantage. In that kind of climate - just a year after 9/11 - the Democrats were under servere pressure to kowtow to Bush. We gave him his war. Don't you dare come with that lie that we didn't work with him.



The CIA had better intel on Iraq than any of our allies. The CIA didn't think they had the goods on Sadaam; but the Vice President twisted arms and got the agency to endorse his vision of the threat. The line about yellowcake uranium in Bush's State of the Union was a baldfaced lie - Bush kept the line, even after the CIA said explicitly that it was an unsupported claim.

Not only that, but the Democrats under Pelosi could have pulled the plug on your war, but we didn't. We enabled you with a policy choice that has cost American lives. We are trying to craft policy - national health care - that will save American lives, and you want nothing to do with it.

The fact is that you right-wing radicals have taken over the party. Deep down, you don't believe in dissent. You just want to rule.



Well, populists are pretty much know-nothings (always have been) when it comes to the real-world complexities of governing a Republic of our size. The complaints you're making go back more than a hundered years. Guess the country's been declining for a long time then - through two world wars, a cold war, high average economic growth, etc. I would suggest you think before you actually complain.



It is inevitable that with a reform of this size and scope, not everybody's going to be happy. That's no excuse for doing nothing.



The vast majority of frivolous lawsuits are thrown out. The evidence shows that the cost to the system of payouts on such torts, is an almost negligible fraction of rising health costs. I'm all for tort reform; but it is easier said than done.

The insurance companies are businesses - they make money by denying care, get it? Besides, there are two obvious problems with competition when it comes to health insurance. The first is regulatory hurdles and costs. The fact that insurance companies deny claims on any possible pretext is a plain fact; when the competition increases, they will have even more incentive to do that, not less. And it's much harder, and more costly, for a policy-holder to try and bring suit against an out-of-state company, than one in their own state.

The second is, that the whole concept of insurance involves pooling risk. An insurer is able to afford big payouts, because a large population of healthy people are paying in. You need actually a substantial number of healthy people in a given pool in order for it to work. But a proliferation of insurance providers of necessity shrinks that pool for each one of them. So the pressure then comes on each of them, to make sure that the people that they do have as policy-holders, are not going to get sick. More competition in insurance basically only works if you're young, healthy, or lucky.



Sounds like an idea worth considering. I'm surprised you're endorsing it, though. It sounds way more generous than a typical conservative is inclined to be.



Look, while we were out of power, we spent years thinking about this. We're moving quickly, now, because we prepared. Personally, I have no problem with the government taking over the provision of health care services. We spend more money on the military; I don't see anybody complaining about how we need the private sector to replace the U.S. army.

This has been gone over adnausium, but here goes ONCE AGAIN.

There are at least 3 things that the government could do today to help decrease healthcare costs. By fixing the entities that THEY ALREADY CONTROL.

1. Close the VA's and let the military personnel go to any hospital in their area and get the same coverage. Millions upon Millions could be saved every year.

2. Increase Medicare reimbursement, hospitals can then lower costs for everyone else. Medicare reimburses are .39cents on the dollar.

3. Attempt to close the loophols in Medicade. Medicade patients abuse the ER using them as Dr's offices instead of for emergencies, which costs hospitals millions every year.

Add those 3 things to Nukeman's idea and healthcare costs would go down. Simple fixes that don't involve throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The Gov. needs to go slow on this and fix the problems we have. Yes, there are problems, but for once the gov. needs to move slowly and FIX THEM THE RIGHT WAY.

[Pericles]

This has been gone over adnausium, but here goes ONCE AGAIN.

There are at least 3 things that the government could do today to help decrease healthcare costs. By fixing the entities that THEY ALREADY CONTROL.

1. Close the VA's and let the military personnel go to any hospital in their area and get the same coverage. Millions upon Millions could be saved every year.

2. Increase Medicare reimbursement, hospitals can then lower costs for everyone else. Medicare reimburses are .39cents on the dollar.

3. Attempt to close the loophols in Medicade. Medicade patients abuse the ER using them as Dr's offices instead of for emergencies, which costs hospitals millions every year.

Add those 3 things to Nukeman's idea and healthcare costs would go down. Simple fixes that don't involve throwing the baby out with the bathwater. The Gov. needs to go slow on this and fix the problems we have. Yes, there are problems, but for once the gov. needs to move slowly and FIX THEM THE RIGHT WAY.

The challenge of equitable and efficient health-care provision is real and complicated. To come to the table with a small set of ideas and summarily announce that they are going to fix all our problems, is naive. The reason we have professional legislators is the same that we have professional managers in sports. The job's a lot more complicated than it looks, but every shmoe on the street thinks they could do a better job.

Cons have never been interested in addressing our health care crisis. If it were up to them, we wouldn't even have Medicare. Bush only did Medicare Part D because it became clear he would lose the election if he didn't, and even then he let Big Pharma write the bill.

When it comes to health care reform, virtually all Cons are amateurs, lacking any serious proposals. That is why the public trusts the Democrats to get this done.

[Missileman]

You tea-partiers have no patience, or long-term perspective. The president is doing about as good a job as could be done, under the circumstances. No matter; all great presidents had know-nothing critics in their time. You guys are just fulfilling that role.

I'm surprised you're still reaching for that "he has no experience" line. This, from people who have seriously entertained the prospect of president Palin. It's like Rush calling somebody else a narcissist. Do you folks ever look in the mirror?

Are you referring to former mayor and former governor Palin? She's exponentially more qualified than Obama.

Obama's now got a year's worth of experience as president and he STILL doesn't have a clue how to run the country. To date, the only ability the Obama/Pelosi/Reid administration has demonstrated is the ability to increase the national debt...they are experts at it.

[Trigg]

The challenge of equitable and efficient health-care provision is real and complicated. To come to the table with a small set of ideas and summarily announce that they are going to fix all our problems, is naive. The reason we have professional legislators is the same that we have professional managers in sports. The job's a lot more complicated than it looks, but every shmoe on the street thinks they could do a better job.

Cons have never been interested in addressing our health care crisis. If it were up to them, we wouldn't even have Medicare. Bush only did Medicare Part D because it became clear he would lose the election if he didn't, and even then he let Big Pharma write the bill.

When it comes to health care reform, virtually all Cons are amateurs, lacking any serious proposals. That is why the public trusts the Democrats to get this done.

So instead of addresssing the ideas I've put forth you insult republicans. That's why nothing gets done in washington. My "small set of ideas" involve programs that the gov. already runs and runs badly. Fix the stuff they are already running into the ground before they take on more responsibilities.

People want to fix our healthcare problems, but right now they should move slowly and fix it the right way.

The dems in washington don't even trust the dem's in washington, that's why the healthcare legislation isn't moving along. They rule both houses and they still don't agree, moderate dems want to move slowly instead of ramming something through (like the stimulus) that the country will come to dispise.

[Joyful HoneyBee]

When it comes to health care reform, virtually all Cons are amateurs, lacking any serious proposals. That is why the public trusts the Democrats to get this done.

I think it is naive to believe that the public trusts Dems to get this job done. I think it is naive to even think that the public desires to have the government handle health care reform at the level they are pushing. I believe that all people want is for health insurance to be more readily available at more competitive prices, for pre-existing conditions to be covered under some type of plan, tort reform to bring down the costs associated with the high level malpractice insurance providers must obtain to practice - thereby bringing down the cost of health care, and more reasonable competition among pharmaceutical companies to bring down the cost of medication. I don't see any of that requires this massive piece of legislation they are trying to cram down our throats.

Seriously...as badly as the government has run Medicare, and as abused as that system has been, can anyone expect this big national piece of donkey manure be anything but trouble?

[Kathianne]

The challenge of equitable and efficient health-care provision is real and complicated. To come to the table with a small set of ideas and summarily announce that they are going to fix all our problems, is naive. The reason we have professional legislators is the same that we have professional managers in sports. The job's a lot more complicated than it looks, but every shmoe on the street thinks they could do a better job.

Cons have never been interested in addressing our health care crisis. If it were up to them, we wouldn't even have Medicare. Bush only did Medicare Part D because it became clear he would lose the election if he didn't, and even then he let Big Pharma write the bill.

When it comes to health care reform, virtually all Cons are amateurs, lacking any serious proposals. That is why the public trusts the Democrats to get this done.

Not only partisan and condescending, but ironically also wrong:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues
[QUOTE Issue Dems Reps
Health Care 40% 46%[/QUOTE]

CNN found the dems losing points quickly, they stopped asking (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/poll.republicans.democrats/index.html) in September.

[PostmodernProphet]

I am getting discouraged by Obama's continued attempts to achieve bipartisan support.

/boggle....I can't imagine where you see attempts to achieve bipartisan support......unless you count "When are the bastards going to see it my way" as an attempt......

[stephanie]

here's you some bi-partinship..

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jifjRVLVjzA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jifjRVLVjzA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[Pericles]

So instead of addresssing the ideas I've put forth you insult republicans. That's why nothing gets done in washington. My "small set of ideas" involve programs that the gov. already runs and runs badly. Fix the stuff they are already running into the ground before they take on more responsibilities.

Like abolishing the VA? Oh, that's real conservative - real small step, there. The cold reality is that politics is the art of the possible - if simply enacting the reform that made the most sense (economically and morally) we'd have single-payer. But Obama, in the best tradition of liberal pragmatism, realizes that we can't get there from where we are. His approach is eminently practical - he can't do a scorched-earth job on the whole system of health care delivery in this country - he has to work with what it already in place.

The thing always to keep in mind: On this issue, President McCain, just like Bush, would be sitting on his hands, doing nothing.


People want to fix our healthcare problems, but right now they should move slowly and fix it the right way.

Health care reform is fraught with the cross-currents of opposing interests. There is no way that "going slow" is going to get anything accomplished. There are too many interests who want to see the pace of reform "slowed," so that they can kill it. The Republicans are not acting, and never have acted, in good faith on this issue. They don't want government-subsidized care, because they're too selfish to pay for it. Simple as that.


The dems in washington don't even trust the dem's in washington, that's why the healthcare legislation isn't moving along. They rule both houses and they still don't agree, moderate dems want to move slowly instead of ramming something through (like the stimulus) that the country will come to dispise.

Again, you've been in your Faux News echo chamber for too long. Health care legislation is moving, by Washington standards, at an expedited pace. And there is real debate going on amongst the moderate and liberal wings of the Democrats, when it comes to the public option - another healthy development. We're going to get this done, without your help. Proving, once more, that the Democrats are the natural party of government.

[Pericles]

I think it is naive to believe that the public trusts Dems to get this job done. I think it is naive to even think that the public desires to have the government handle health care reform at the level they are pushing.

Your problem is that you don't know any Democrats. Your view of what "the public" wants is skewed by who you know.


I believe that all people want is for health insurance to be more readily available at more competitive prices, for pre-existing conditions to be covered under some type of plan, tort reform to bring down the costs associated with the high level malpractice insurance providers must obtain to practice - thereby bringing down the cost of health care, and more reasonable competition among pharmaceutical companies to bring down the cost of medication. I don't see any of that requires this massive piece of legislation they are trying to cram down our throats.

Cost-control is the key issue. If the market worked when it comes to the provision of health care, we'd have affordable care and that would be that. But our (dysfunctional) health care system is already more geared toward the market than any other OECD country. It's past time to recognize, that the pure market approach to health-care provision has failed.


Seriously...as badly as the government has run Medicare, and as abused as that system has been, can anyone expect this big national piece of donkey manure be anything but trouble?

This is pure misinformation. Where is the evidence that Medicare has been badly run - ? That the private sector could do better, in meeting seniors' needs - ?

[Pericles]

Not only partisan and condescending, but ironically also wrong:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues
[QUOTE Issue Dems Reps
Health Care 40% 46%


CNN found the dems losing points quickly, they stopped asking (http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/04/poll.republicans.democrats/index.html) in September.

Let's use our brain and think for just a minute. We're on the cusp of a historic entitlement reform. We are going to have difficulty financing it, thanks to the utterly irresponsible fiscal policy of the Reagan and Bush II years. It's only regular psychology, that people in general will hesitate before making a big change in uncertain times, especially when there is a (very) vocal minority voicing opposition and spreading fear and uncertainty.

No poll-of-the-moment is going to trump the fact that, for years, the public has trusted the Democrats more on health care than the Republicans. After we pass our bill, and people see the benefits (inevitable, since our current health care benefit received per dollar is so inefficient), the Cons are going to pay a steep and lasting price, for standing in the way.

[Jeff]

here's you some bi-partinship..

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/jifjRVLVjzA&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/jifjRVLVjzA&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Bi-partinship my ass, lets not forget the late night meeting where the Republicans weren't invited , And then there was Obama's famous words, *I WON GET OVER IT* what kind of moron would call anything he has done to this part being bi-partinship :poke:

[Missileman]

This is pure misinformation. Where is the evidence that Medicare has been badly run - ? That the private sector could do better, in meeting seniors' needs - ?

Are you serious? Obama himself admits that fraud and waste within Medicare is costing the taxpayers $60 billion a year.

[Pericles]

Are you serious? Obama himself admits that fraud and waste within Medicare is costing the taxpayers $60 billion a year.

Look, - if that figure is accurate - that's Medicare's share of the waste that afflicts our entire health-care system; it stems from the inefficiencies of medical record-keeping and unecessarily duplicated labor.

There's no "fraud" in Medicare that I'm aware of - in stark contrast to what goes on with claims-denial by the insurance companies.

[stephanie]

Look, - if that figure is accurate - that's Medicare's share of the waste that afflicts our entire health-care system; it stems from the inefficiencies of medical record-keeping and unecessarily duplicated labor.

There's no "fraud" in Medicare that I'm aware of - in stark contrast to what goes on with claims-denial by the insurance companies.

OMG! that made me dizzy..

[Missileman]

Look, - if that figure is accurate - that's Medicare's share of the waste that afflicts our entire health-care system; it stems from the inefficiencies of medical record-keeping and unecessarily duplicated labor.

There's no "fraud" in Medicare that I'm aware of - in stark contrast to what goes on with claims-denial by the insurance companies.

Obama claims he can wave his magic wand and instantly make the $60 billion available to help pay for the dems' plan.

As for the "fraud" in Medicare, you might not be aware of it, but the government is.

http://www.medicare.gov/fraudabuse/Overview.asp

And here's just one quick example:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/29/AR2009072903275.html

[Nukeman]

The challenge of equitable and efficient health-care provision is real and complicated. To come to the table with a small set of ideas and summarily announce that they are going to fix all our problems, is naive. The reason we have professional legislators is the same that we have professional managers in sports. The job's a lot more complicated than it looks, but every shmoe on the street thinks they could do a better job.

Cons have never been interested in addressing our health care crisis. If it were up to them, we wouldn't even have Medicare. Bush only did Medicare Part D because it became clear he would lose the election if he didn't, and even then he let Big Pharma write the bill.

When it comes to health care reform, virtually all Cons are amateurs, lacking any serious proposals. That is why the public trusts the Democrats to get this done.


Like abolishing the VA? Oh, that's real conservative - real small step, there. The cold reality is that politics is the art of the possible - if simply enacting the reform that made the most sense (economically and morally) we'd have single-payer. But Obama, in the best tradition of liberal pragmatism, realizes that we can't get there from where we are. His approach is eminently practical - he can't do a scorched-earth job on the whole system of health care delivery in this country - he has to work with what it already in place.

The thing always to keep in mind: On this issue, President McCain, just like Bush, would be sitting on his hands, doing nothing.



Health care reform is fraught with the cross-currents of opposing interests. There is no way that "going slow" is going to get anything accomplished. There are too many interests who want to see the pace of reform "slowed," so that they can kill it. The Republicans are not acting, and never have acted, in good faith on this issue. They don't want government-subsidized care, because they're too selfish to pay for it. Simple as that.



Again, you've been in your Faux News echo chamber for too long. Health care legislation is moving, by Washington standards, at an expedited pace. And there is real debate going on amongst the moderate and liberal wings of the Democrats, when it comes to the public option - another healthy development. We're going to get this done, without your help. Proving, once more, that the Democrats are the natural party of government.


Your problem is that you don't know any Democrats. Your view of what "the public" wants is skewed by who you know.



Cost-control is the key issue. If the market worked when it comes to the provision of health care, we'd have affordable care and that would be that. But our (dysfunctional) health care system is already more geared toward the market than any other OECD country. It's past time to recognize, that the pure market approach to health-care provision has failed.



This is pure misinformation. Where is the evidence that Medicare has been badly run - ? That the private sector could do better, in meeting seniors' needs - ?


Let's use our brain and think for just a minute. We're on the cusp of a historic entitlement reform. We are going to have difficulty financing it, thanks to the utterly irresponsible fiscal policy of the Reagan and Bush II years. It's only regular psychology, that people in general will hesitate before making a big change in uncertain times, especially when there is a (very) vocal minority voicing opposition and spreading fear and uncertainty.

No poll-of-the-moment is going to trump the fact that, for years, the public has trusted the Democrats more on health care than the Republicans. After we pass our bill, and people see the benefits (inevitable, since our current health care benefit received per dollar is so inefficient), the Cons are going to pay a steep and lasting price, for standing in the way.

My God could you be more condescending towards anyone that doesn't agree with your Obama worship!!! YOU are one messed up person, you feel your way is the only way and the rest of us must be either dumbed down by public education or just very misinformed.

You are obviously a self centered egotistical piece of shit that just parrotes the Dem party line, and you have the audacity to say we repeat the repulican line.... My god what a tool!!!!!!!!!

[Trigg]

Like abolishing the VA? Oh, that's real conservative - real small step, there. The cold reality is that politics is the art of the possible - if simply enacting the reform that made the most sense (economically and morally) we'd have single-payer. But Obama, in the best tradition of liberal pragmatism, realizes that we can't get there from where we are. His approach is eminently practical - he can't do a scorched-earth job on the whole system of health care delivery in this country - he has to work with what it already in place.

The thing always to keep in mind: On this issue, President McCain, just like Bush, would be sitting on his hands, doing nothing.



Health care reform is fraught with the cross-currents of opposing interests. There is no way that "going slow" is going to get anything accomplished. There are too many interests who want to see the pace of reform "slowed," so that they can kill it. The Republicans are not acting, and never have acted, in good faith on this issue. They don't want government-subsidized care, because they're too selfish to pay for it. Simple as that.



Again, you've been in your Faux News echo chamber for too long. Health care legislation is moving, by Washington standards, at an expedited pace. And there is real debate going on amongst the moderate and liberal wings of the Democrats, when it comes to the public option - another healthy development. We're going to get this done, without your help. Proving, once more, that the Democrats are the natural party of government.

Your the one who called my ideas small, NOT ME. It's not a conservative idea either. It's an idea born from working in healthcare my entire working life. It's seeing how badly they're run and KNOWING that shutting them down and letting the people go where ever they want will same MILLIONS EVERY YEAR.

But you have no ideas other than to insult. How about thinking???

I want the problems in healthcare fixed. Everyone who works in the system wants the loopholes and problems fixed.

NO one has yet explained why a public option is a good idea.

1. It will cost a fortune and up taxes on everyone.
2. With taxes on everything increased how are people supposed to afford private insurance?????
3. There will be rationing of care---Europe has this problem already.
4. There will be long waits-----Europe has this problem already.

Where is the upside....cause I sure don't see it.

I refuse to pay for someone elses abortion and I sure as hell don't want illegals sucking the system dry.

[jimnyc]

Obama is failing because he is letting the nitwits like Pelosi and Reid run the show. He should toss them 2 to the curb. He promised bipartisanship and that turned out to be a bunch of shit from day #1 on anything of importance. He and his party promised transparency like we've never seen in Washington, and all I see is them keeping as much crap from the public as possible. Unfortunately, he must let others lead as he has no idea how to. He should be man enough to demand his party invite EVERYONE to work on bills together. He should demand that congress actually read bills in their entirety before they vote, and should demand it be accessible to the public in it's entirety long before the vote takes place. Anything less than that would mean his promises on the trail were empty. He promised to listen to his Generals, and yet by not listening to his Generals we witnessed the most deaths to our troops in one month since 2003.

He needs to stop worrying about how he looks on camera and actually DO something. Of course liberals will come back with the usual "well, when the republicans were in charge they did this and this ..."

I don't care about what republicans did in the past. I care about what democrats on the campaign stated, what Obama stated on the trail - where we are today and how the aforementioned are standing behind the promises while attacking today's issues.

[red states rule]

Let's use our brain and think for just a minute. We're on the cusp of a historic entitlement reform. We are going to have difficulty financing it, thanks to the utterly irresponsible fiscal policy of the Reagan and Bush II years. It's only regular psychology, that people in general will hesitate before making a big change in uncertain times, especially when there is a (very) vocal minority voicing opposition and spreading fear and uncertainty.

No poll-of-the-moment is going to trump the fact that, for years, the public has trusted the Democrats more on health care than the Republicans. After we pass our bill, and people see the benefits (inevitable, since our current health care benefit received per dollar is so inefficient), the Cons are going to pay a steep and lasting price, for standing in the way.

They are seeing what s in the bill, that is why they are rejecting it - along with some Dems

Why would anyone want a bill that uses the command "shall" 3,345 times. Not much choice there

Or a bill that would create 111 government agencies, boards, commissions and other bureaucracies -- all overseen by a new health-care czar bearing the title "commissioner of health choices."

Or a bill where the government would force every American to buy health insurance and would control what benefits those policies must include.

Or a bill where small businesses must provide their workers with a government-devised minimum package of insurance benefits. The wipe out hundreds of thousands of jobs, and at the same time force some workers to accept insurance benefits rather than higher wages

Or a bill where Americans would have to pay nearly $730 billion in new taxes, fees and penalties over the next 10 years to fund this huge government expansion

Or a bill where the tax increeases happen now, yet Obamacare will not take effect until 2013 - after the 2010 electon

[Pericles]

They are seeing what s in the bill, that is why they are rejecting it - along with some Dems

Why would anyone want a bill that uses the command "shall" 3,345 times. Not much choice there

Like that's even an argument?


Or a bill that would create 111 government agencies, boards, commissions and other bureaucracies -- all overseen by a new health-care czar bearing the title "commissioner of health choices."

You seem to think this is an argument, too - as if a bureaucratic office is automatically something bad. I guess you have no use for the Justice Department, either.


Or a bill where the government would force every American to buy health insurance and would control what benefits those policies must include.

Barking up the wrong tree, pal. I'm all for that measure - as is the AMA. Health insurance is a right, and paying in to the common risk pool, an obligation.


Or a bill where small businesses must provide their workers with a government-devised minimum package of insurance benefits. The wipe out hundreds of thousands of jobs, and at the same time force some workers to accept insurance benefits rather than higher wages

This is pure talking-point scare mongering. You can believe it, if you want. You know: it's funny, usually you Confederates go on all day long about the glories of the efficiency of the market economy. 'Creative Destruction' is the mantra. Jobs must be phased out in unproductive sectors, to ensure the competitive health of the economy as a whole. And I'll admit, there's really something to that argument. But suddenly, when it threatens the jobs of highly-paid insurance company pros, who suddenly would need to find something else to do when there expertise in denying claims was no longer needed - all of a sudden then you start sounding like a got-religion protectionist: we need to save these jobs!! Puh-lease.


Or a bill where Americans would have to pay nearly $730 billion in new taxes, fees and penalties over the next 10 years to fund this huge government expansion

Are you really so dishonest, you are not going to factor in the opportunity cost of taking no action? We spend more, for less that any other country in the OECD. Sounds like it's working out great for us! Why, oh WHY, are you joe-sixpack types still allowing yourselves to take it in the ass for the corporate masters of the Republican party? Are you never going to wake up?


Or a bill where the tax increeases happen now, yet Obamacare will not take effect until 2013 - after the 2010 electon

And your point, is? Get your talking-points in order. Most of the time you're complaining about how social programs are just schemes to buy votes; if that's so, then it makes no sense to delay implementation. If there's a delay then, it must be - wonder of wonders! - for a reason. Maybe something like as with the installation of Social Security, which also had a five-year window of amassing a fund, before the payout of benefits began. Sheesh. You Confederates will go to your grave never having had a clue.

[red states rule]

Bottom line is Pericles, you have no argument to disprove what is in the bills, and you fall back on approved talking points

Like the Dems, you can't to point the page number in the bill that proves my facts wrong

That is why support for Obamcare is a record lows and why many Dems will not vote for it

[red states rule]

BTW Pericles, I asked this of several other libs on the baord they failed to reply. Go for it and i will talk to you later. I am tired and going to bed

Have a good night

After 9 months in office Obama, Reid, and Pelosi have tripled the annual budget deficit, increased the antional debt to over $13 trillion, had the Federal government take over private companies, ordered the compensation of CEO's to be cut, showed weakness to our enemies overseas, and ignored the pleas for more help for our troops in Afghanistan

We also have the leader of America now having a temper tantrum over the coverage he gets from Fox News, and tried to have the reporters tossed out of the White House Press Pool. Seems Pres Obama is compiling his own Enemies List and has no problem showing his contempt for anyone or any organization openly opposing his liberal tax and spend policies

On healthcare reform, Obama continues to try and sell the idea Obamacare will be paid for, and will not add to the deficit, despite the fact the numbers do not add up. It is Democrats who are now blocking this attempted power grab by the left, which will put private insurance companies out of business, and make even more people dependent on the government

Which is exactly what Dems want anyway

With the pending cap and trade bill, Dems want a $1/gallon tax increase which amounts to a $3.6 trillion tax increase on working families and companies. So not only will gas prices soar to near $4/gal, but also the cost of natural gas, electricity, and the price of anything you buy increases as well

As unemployment continues to rise, and the economy slips further downward, Obama and his supporters continue to play the "Blame Bush" card. While it worked in the early months of his administration, it looks as if more and more people are seeing what a huge error in judgement they made when they voted for an inexperienced, thin skined rookie who was not ready for prime time

While we were told the nation could not afford a third term of Bush with John McCain, we now have to endure Jimmy Carters second term. We can only hope the Amateur Night performance currently playing at the White House will close permanently on Jan 20, 2013

[Pericles]

Bottom line is Pericles, you have no argument to disprove what is in the bills, and you fall back on approved talking points

Again, you're assuming that I don't approve of what is in there. We can agree on the content, and disagree on the merits.


That is why support for Obamcare is a record lows and why many Dems will not vote for it

Man, you really phone in your arguments, dontcha? Support for the healthcare bill - by any measure, a historic reform - has dropped, but at "historic lows" - ? What does that even mean, spud?

It's really not surprising that public support has dropped, when the legislation is being hammered out over the course of many months, when the minority party is in united and vocal opposition to it, and the general anxiety of a serious recession hangs over the electorate. People are always afraid of real change, and no less so in uncertain times. The Cons, moreover, have perfected the politics of smear and fear - and those are powerful weapons in dissuading people from making big new moves. What's worth keeping in mind, instead, is that in spite of all those inertial-factors, there's still plenty of political momentum for reform. The Democrats are going to deliver - and then we'll all see if Confederate obstruction was such a good idea, after all.

[red states rule]

Again, you're assuming that I don't approve of what is in there. We can agree on the content, and disagree on the merits.



Man, you really phone in your arguments, dontcha? Support for the healthcare bill - by any measure, a historic reform - has dropped, but at "historic lows" - ? What does that even mean, spud?

It's really not surprising that public support has dropped, when the legislation is being hammered out over the course of many months, when the minority party is in united and vocal opposition to it, and the general anxiety of a serious recession hangs over the electorate. People are always afraid of real change, and no less so in uncertain times. The Cons, moreover, have perfected the politics of smear and fear - and those are powerful weapons in dissuading people from making big new moves. What's worth keeping in mind, instead, is that in spite of all those inertial-factors, there's still plenty of political momentum for reform. The Democrats are going to deliver - and then we'll all see if Confederate obstruction was such a good idea, after all.

People do not support this bil because they are finding out what is in it. Higher taxes, massive deficits, rationed care, and more government power over our lives

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

I do stand corected. Support is up 3 points from its all time low

BTW, how are Republicans obstructing when it is Dems who are blocking its passage, and Harry Reid is talking about changing the rules of the Senate to try and ram it thru?

and Dems have to bribe Dems with pork to get their vote?

[cat slave]

My husband and I never talk about politics. But we happened upon the topic tonight after watching the news. We agreed that Obama is rapidly losing the support of the people who helped put him in office.
I am getting discouraged by Obama's continued attempts to achieve bipartisan support. This is particularly true of the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Obama won over a lot of us by criticizing the war efforts and promising to end U.S. involvement. He promised withdrawals between 18 months and two years.
Now it appears that Obama has fallen under the spell of war-loving conservatives who feel the war effort should be enhanced instead of ended. Not that any of us should be surprised about a politician breaking his promise.

Obama's health care reforms are failing by trying to be too many things to too many people. And, again, by trying to reach across the aisle for bipartisan support, which will not happen.
In previous majority governments, legislation was jammed through by the party in power. No kowtowing, no apologies. Of course, that was before the advent of 24-hour news stations and single-party media outlets.

Obama needs to stop being too many things to too many people. He needs to get tougher and learn the Reagan method of "bullshit while you are smiling." That is why Reagan was so successful. He seemed so nice and sincere, no one realized that he was dealing all his dirty cards under the table.
Conversely, that is why Clinton and Dubya failed. Everyone could see through their bullshit.

Obama needs to stop screwing around with Fox and learn to ignore the media like Dubya. Perhaps plant some fake journalists to ask softball questions. Worked for his predecessor.

"Bipartisan"?????????? Youve got to be kidding or drowning in Kool Aide.
Have you forgotten BOs line in the sand that "he won"! Klinton is now a
failure because BO threw them all under the bus and thats going to come
back to bite his scrawny ass...haha....its gonna be good.

As for the previous evil party domination, why has a lot of this crap been
pulled behind closed doors? Oh, they are transparent doors...silly me, but
of course!

Reagan succeeded because he saw that people kept more of their own money. He pulled us together and gave us real hope not the crap BO has
thrown around like confetti. He supported the idea of small business and
the life blood of our economy. He believed in smaller government and
the freedom of the people to make their own choices and win or lose,
their choice and he got out of the way and let our economy spring back.

Maybe you werent born yet when Reagan came into the WH....I was and
I was working for a dentist and no one could get their dental issues addressed
because everyone was laid off and had no dental insurance. Oh, but, Im sure
you think that is a prime reason for the government to run our lives....rotfl!
You have so much to learn..the question is, will you take off your blinders,
think for yourself and wake up and smell the coffee or whatever you swig
in the morning.

[cat slave]

People do not support this bil because they are finding out what is in it. Higher taxes, massive deficits, rationed care, and more government power over our lives

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

I do stand corected. Support is up 3 points from its all time low

BTW, how are Republicans obstructing when it is Dems who are blocking its passage, and Harry Reid is talking about changing the rules of the Senate to try and ram it thru?

and Dems have to bribe Dems with pork to get their vote?

Isnt the margin for error reflected in the 3%! I wouldnt be throwing any
parties yet.

The whole think stinks to high Heaven and people are actually seeing what
is before them. Even the stupidest realize that if things get bad enough
they will lose their freebies.

Selling out and winning by bribery are standard practices of dishonest
politicians....and this batch knows their days are numbered thats why
they are so desperate to get it done. Their hour glasses are running out
of sand.

Reid knows full well he is on his last leg and could well be thrown out and
replaced by a Pub. Reid and the gruesome bunch are the best things that
ever happened to the Pub Party. We want change and yes we can!!!!
The tables are turning..fast!

Hope, change, now we can use that worn battle cry.

[avatar4321]

Barking up the wrong tree, pal. I'm all for that measure - as is the AMA. Health insurance is a right, and paying in to the common risk pool, an obligation.


And that is your problem. You think Health insurance/care is a right. It's not. We are not entitled to anything that others have to produce. We do not have a right to their goods. We do not have a right to their services. We can purchase their goods/services by giving them something of equal value. But we are not entitled because we were born.

No one is obligated to give anyone else what they work for accept through argreement. The use of force to take away the goods or services of one person for ones own benefit, whether through violence or government, is slavery.

We need to keep this nation free. Allow individual to rise and fall according to their efforts. We need to encourage charity and opress people through government.

[stephanie]

the little Marxist is failing because the Presidency is waaaaaay above his pay grade..he was probably told by his handlers (puppet master) that this job would be a piece of cake...all he would have to do is go out read off a teleprompter what is written for him and then soak up all the perks that come with being in the white house..I bet they didn't inform him eventually his own party would be turning on him and then they would be leaving him out in the wilderness for the wolves (the Progressives-commies) to gnaw away at him...poor dear, maybe he should RESIGN..:thumb:

[Pericles]

And that is your problem. You think Health insurance/care is a right. It's not.

I do not understand why you insist on denying your rights - or, for that matter, your responsibilities to your fellow citizens.


We are not entitled to anything that others have to produce. We do not have a right to their goods. We do not have a right to their services. We can purchase their goods/services by giving them something of equal value. But we are not entitled because we were born.

If all what you say were true, then no one would survive to adulthood. What we are entitled to, are our rights. All the various rights that we enjoy the possession of, can be encapsulated in a simple formula: equality of opportunity.

The decent society will be the one that secures opportunity, by ensuring that every citizen, regardless of means, have the same baseline opportunity to exercise their talents and make their way. In a society where we are all legally equal, there is no just alternative. What is required for this opportunity? Public order (law enforcement, the courts); public and private health; and public education. We can also go further and include even food and shelter, in the case of orphaned minors. Without access to these fundamental services, an individual is not secure in their opportunity, not secure in their liberty - they will not be able to even get up to the starting-line in life.


No one is obligated to give anyone else what they work for accept through argreement.

I've no argument with that, in principle. But democratic decision-making does not require unanimity (the election of 2000 should be clear enough evidence of that). If the people, through the democratic process, decide that their rights are being neglected, and take measures to redress this - well, then, you can hardly claim that those in the minority were illegitimately forced. You've simply lost the debate, that's all.


The use of force to take away the goods or services of one person for ones own benefit, whether through violence or government, is slavery.

You are obviously in thrall to the myth of libertarian individualism. Two prominent features of this ideology, are 1) an attempt to reduce the whole of society to that society's economy, and 2) the belief that the economic value a person adds, can be reduced simply and purely to their own efforts. No one makes it "all on their own," in abstraction from the extraordinarily complex social system in which they live and experience meaning. That social system is predicated on a certain presumption of inherent human worth and dignity. On account of our legal equality, and for the sake of maintaining those institutions which support and maintain that equality, the gross resources of a society must be shared.

I quite understand if you lack the moral imagination to grasp this point. But most economists, you'll find, agree with me. Health care is vital to individual dignity and opportunity; and we are as entitled to it, as we are to education. Period.

[Jeff]

Because he's a democrat & black? :dunno:
:gives:

Truth be told he is a monkey is a suit, as for Dem, maybe maybe not, can't believe nothing that monkey says

[Missileman]

I do not understand why you insist on denying your rights - or, for that matter, your responsibilities to your fellow citizens.



Ooooh...the "R" word...strange that you should use it. I think every able-bodied citizen has a responsibility to take care of him or herself. Other than obeying the laws of the land, that should be number one priority for every American. Entitlements are UN-American. The only thing any of us are entitled to is opportunity.

[NightTrain]

Fox is a GOP news source. Same way that Talk radio is all GOP.

FOX reports news, both sides of it. Couric style? Nope.


A lot of stupid people watch TV. They believe what they see, BS or not.

Interesting that you'd say that. I've been meaning to hammer you about this subject, but just now am getting around to it.


Who is Chris Matthews and why does his opinion matter to anyone?

This makes sense after you read :


I don't watch MSNBC. Or CNN. Or pretty much any of the mainstream media.
Unless you consider the Disney Channel and Animal Channel the msm.

Other than DU, how the fuck are you informed?

You're not. Stop being a twit and educate yourself. Disney XD tells you about the Jonas Brothers, not about American Politics. Twit.

Since you have already admitted that you don't watch the news, how do you support your first statement? You can't.

Twit.