So Obama wastes taxpayer money and his time by flying to Europe to tell the IOC why Chicago is the best place for the Olympics. Hours after he left, they voted Chicago the first city out.
Obama has invested a lot of time campaigning for the VA and NJ governorship and BOTH Democrats lost.
In the VA exit polls, 40% of voters were drawn to the polls because of Obama's campaigning but it was split whether they voted for or against BECAUSE of Obama's campaigning.
It looks like people are not only voting for candidates because of Obama's support but voting against candidates because of Obama.
I have a feeling that the celebrity and "wishful thinking" of Obama being a great candidate is gone.
Obama needs to spend LESS time flapping his jaws and more time trying to fix issues.
How about starting with Afghanistan and make a freaking decision!!!! Or just shake the 8-ball and use that as your decision. DO SOMETHING!
This clown will be voted out of office even if he goes against Palin
Calm down. Some people really expected him to solve every problem in the world and create a utopia within 3 months. He IS fixing issues, but one man can't fix everything in 10 months. Afghanistan is not a decision to be rushed or taken lightly. I wish Bush had been more careful and thorough when he planned (or didn't plan) Iraq as Obama is being now.
Who are you to call him a clown?
If everyone is over his speeches and he is as bad as they say, maybe now is a good time to impeach him. Let's get out the evidence and get a special prosecutor.
I kept hearing that the Republicans/Conservatives were a dead party, it seems in New Jersey and Virginia the Republicans/Conservatives have won, whats up with that?
Don't delude yourself. This was a meaningless election. The right candidates won because they were a better choice than the opposing candidate. Obama did what he had to do as the ranking democrat.
If in 2010 the republicans can offer a quality candidate that has a few ideas then Obama may be in trouble to repeat.
Vote issues and not party is the only way this country can survive.
Hey Tex, I had a good laugh over that same post by Rhamson on another thread
I read it, they just don't get it, Independents my ass!
You know what you two are so predictable. Nothing to say but plenty of attitude. I guess ignorance is bliss. Just look how much fun you have.
Yeah, and unfortunately it seems to be at your expense.
Well I guess an empty barrel does make the most noise. Correct me if I am wrong but did you say yeah to being ignorant?
If you say so, I know that the Independents vote issue not party.
Kinda makes you wonder how Obama supporters are going to justify the midterm elections, doesn't it Tex? Kinda like the way they couldn't believe that voters went Republican in 1994.
rhamson, people do vote the issues and they have an issue with what people like Frank, Reid and Pelosi, not mention Comrade Obama are doing in Washington. Just because you don't agree with what the American people are doing you don't get to categorize it as voting party rather than issues.
I would hope they do vote issues and not party but from what I have seen in here the party politic is alive and well. I can categorize it how I see it and you have a right to disagree. We disagree on a lot of issues and you choose to look at it differently than I do. As far as labeling people as you have you have described your preference and likewise the position you take. That could set you up for being prejudged as having a particular bias. In my particular part of the state you find a great deal of people voting party rather than issues and they take up any cause that coincides with it.
That's a big, and lazy, mistake on anyone's part.
I agree and hopefully my vote will cancel out someone who does not vote the issues and votes party. But labeling it does not negate its' affect on our situation. Perhaps the best part for you is that they mostly voted against Obama in the last election. Do you still think they made a big, lazy mistake?
Nope. Obama is this country's worst nightmare. They see where the D's are going and they don't like it. Besides, it is not necessarily possible for us to know if people in those states votes issues or party.
Who could possibly know how many but a good deal of them I have talked to. Your cause seems to overshadows your logic as defined in the previous post.
How so? If we see a party going in a certain direction and refusing to take into account the wishes of the American people then it is necessary to vote that party out. I don't think it's an either/or situation. If the D's aren't doing what we want, we vote them out. Same with the R's. Issue by issue is another aspect but equally important.
The statement that the big, lazy mistake was made by people who voted party rather than issues was negated in the following post when you said "Nope,Obama is this country's worst nightmare. They see where the D's are going and they don't like it."
But I do agree that we do have the power to vote partys out if we don't agree with their particular direction.
My point is that it's not either/or. The parties either stand for certain things or they don't. Right now, in this political climate, they blow with the wind depending on where the power is. Pathetic.
So you think that the majority rules result is a pathetic premise for our democracy? Or is it that pollsters direct more influence to create the atmosphere for the politicians to chase after popularity? How is that related to party politics taking over?
2016 should be a very interesting election. I think many people are waking up to the fact that Republican or Democrat, the party line is Progressive in nature. Once that realization becomes common knowledge, well we might see something we haven't seen in over 150 years, the destruction of a political party. Two in this case, unless I'm mistaken and the moderates of both parties can get together.
I don't think it will come to that. I think what you will see in 2012 is the crushing defeat of democrats as Americans reject their socialist agenda! Legalize Freedom!!!!
Not if the Republican Party leadership is controlled by neocons and guys like Arlen Specter. If that happens, both parties will be repudiated.
Incorrect, he's a Progressive. The Democrats just happen to have more Progressives than Republicans. Did you look at the positions Scozzafava had in New York? She sounded just like a "Democrat" and she had, until about a week ago, the backing of the national Republican party.
He was a republician and he switched parties. Progressive is more like a liberal democrat or a socialist.
Look up Scozzafava. See what her stances were.
And while you're at it, look up Creigh Deeds's stances. There's an analogy there. (BTW, I am not related in any way to Creigh, politically or otherwise.)
Scozzafava is a democrat. She endorsed the democrat candidate. I know she ran under the republican brand, but clearly she wasn't a republican. Not that it matters to me. I don't care what party someone belongs to I only care that they are for smaller government, less regulation, lower taxes and greater individual freedom. Generally speaking the democrats philosophy is exactly opposite of mine.
Funny. Bush campaigned for smaller government, yet until Papa Obama, his administration presided over the largest increase in government since the bad old days of FDR. Just because someone says they're for smaller government, doesn't mean that their actions will follow their words. Actions count, words are meaningless.
Agreed! Government by it's very nature is corrupt. It is in it's own interest to grow and become bigger. Part of the problem with Bush was that the republicans had a majority in congress while controlling the WH. That's too much power for one party. The other problem is the voters that allowed that to happen.
"The other problem is the voters that allowed that to happen" Now this is something that I can agree with you on. How can we ensure that the electorate become more involved and vote? The major problem as I see it is the polarization of the electorate by the two party system and the lack of responsiblity of the voters to get out and vote. So many people take an apathetic attitude towards the process and leave it to others.
The Polarization comes from the "NON" or what should be "NON" issues when it comes to congressional elections. These issues are Abortion, Illegal Immigration, Entitlements, etc. These issues are brought to the forfront for the sole purpose of dividing the electorate and creating a constituency. Notice how NONE of these issues ever get solved. Thats because they are just their as guidpost...to tell us what side of ailse we belong on....SAD....
I agree! They kind of dust it off and play it again when the real issues are to much to sway. The sorry thing is the lack of information a majority of the electorate aquire prior to voting. Poor saps.
Our system of government was never set up to deal with the problems of political parties. They cropped up during Washington's administration and coalesced around Hamilton and Jefferson. About the only good thing Aaron Burr did was shoot Hamilton.
The problem is, as Benjamin Franklin said: "The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself." and: "All human situations have their inconveniences. We feel those of the present but neither see nor feel those of the future; and hence we often make troublesome changes without amendment, and frequently for the worse."
We're seeing today the folly of straying from the wisdom of Franklin and people like him.
If what you say is true then we are all individuals and should only rely on that which is self serving. Remember this?
"No man is an island, entire of itself...any man's death diminishes me, because I am involved in mankind; and therefore never send to know for whom the bell tolls; it tolls for thee."
This country was founded on it strength in numbers and it's progress is infinitely tied to it. If we stray from this then we are doomed to fight out our own little wars in our own little serfdoms.
Being self reliant isn't the same thing as screwing your neighbor over. In fact it is very often not in your self interest to screw your neighbor over because you never know when you're going to need their help or be in their power. Each man should be an island unto themselves in respects to not being a burden on someone. Once we've taken care of ourselves, then it's our duty to watch out for each other.
You, like so many others either deliberately or out of ignorance, confuse self interest and selfishness.
Ben Franklin also had issues with the Constitution.
That's an interesting read on my comments. The comments by Franklin only warn of the corruption of government not the neccesity. The wisdom of letting us amend the constitution was the remedy to that problem. Jefferson also warned of doom if the lawyers were to gain control of the congress. But deliberately or ignoringly confusing self interest for selfishness you really have to make that call for yourself. Because if that were the case I would try a much different tact. You are confused as to your role as an American and picking and choosing issues that don't seem convenient because you need to take care of yourself first only lends one to believe there is a solitude about you and that your well being as an individual is paramount above all else. I hope this is not the case and that you can refrain from attacks that are judgements indicating a different nature to the conversation. You are better than that.
The fact remains that with the current healthcare system we have there will be a breakdown and it will be impossible to afford very shortly and there is only one organization that can offer a solution. If you wait too long there will be no system you will be able to afford. Other countries have realized this, made the decision and moved on. Just read the comments by other foreign participants before this one. Your bias against government only gets in the way of progress proven by others. If you cannot see it then I am sorry. If you would put your efforts towards helping develop a system that is based on others success and modifying it to fit ours, then you really may have something worthwhile other than just saying no to anything the government may offer.
I agree 100%!!! Most of the time government interference and legislation just creates problems, inequities, and market disruptions, then gov comes to the rescue with more bad laws!
Just curious, do you consider yourself a moderate? You strike me as a quite radical libertarian.
Ralph you invest too much time in trying to label people. It might be a very human way to make things easier in processing information for the brain, but it's a very poor way to attempt to understand the world around us.
Unlike you, I know that people are individuals. Even so, I can from time to time, make the same mistake you do and assume things. But because I treat people as individuals and not classify them in groups, I understand that you can hold a wide variety of opinions that do not conform to the asinine division of conservative->moderate->liberal. Things just are not as simple as that tripartite division.
And yes, compared to Ron Paul, I would be a radical libertarian. He believes in a minimalist government after all, while I believe that the Constitution naturally leads, over time, to the unholy mess we find ourselves in today.
There is no such thing as the Republican/Conservative party. Republicans in Virginia and New Jersey who were careful to distance themselves from the right-wing loonies beat two troubled candidates.
The conservative who did the opposite, distancing himself from the "rational" Republicans was beaten by a mediocre Democratic candidate.
If Republicans want to retain any relevance as a national party, they have to throw the GlenBeck cult overboard.
Well they still love him over in Europe. However I understand that Obama just turned down Merkel's invitation to the anniversary of the destruction of the Berlin Wall. Seems that Obama only wanted it for a backdrop for his speeches but the meaning of the real event escapes him.
There have been Europeans in this forum that can't believe that people in the U.S. don't like him but I told them the was only in public office for less than 4 years and they were shocked.
They definitely see him more as an image and celebrity than a politician. They get caught up in his speeches but don't know the real Obama.
They'll catch on
your titles are so biased. nothing is obvious, everyone?? you can make this claim? please...
Public opinion polls are at 50% for Obama's approval rating which is the lowest for him as well.
Ok, there is a CORRELATION.
And it's funny how all the Obama supporters always complain about people who point out his faults but NEVER give examples of how he is improving everything. They never try to defend him with facts lol
Anyone notice that?
it is a complete waste of my time to talk politics on the HP political forums. I have no desire in getting involved but when I see this ridiculous title, I will leave a remark. you don't see what you don't look for.
- 2nd part of stimulus pkg ($350 billion)
- stopped torture @ Guantanamo & ordered its closure (later ordering release of torture memos)
- reversed Bush's stopping of funding of family planning orgs overseas
- allowed Calif to set its own emissions standards (another reversal of Bush's idiotic policy)
- #3! ended Bush's restriction of funding stem-cell research
- forced GM & Chrysler into bankruptcy
- Cash for Clunkers, successful enough that it was extended
- nominated Sonia Sotomayor to the SCOTUS
- Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
- $288 billion tax cut
- kept Gates (Repub) and McChrystal (Repub)
- ended HIV travel/immigration ban
- health-care insurance reform (not finished, but he took it on & it looks like it will actually happen)
Some of us don't buy into the pundits' lazy refrain that he hasn't done anything because they just don't want to recall anything.
Must be uncomfortable to respond to facts... it's easier to take shots at people using out-of-context quotes though...
Your list is laughable, you really think these are things we should praise him for? This is why he will be a 1 term President, Jesus!
Is this seriously your list? For one, half of these haven't been finished and probably never will be.
And of course you would be happy with the stimulus package since he "bought" our banking system and car companies. He didn't use the stimulus package money the way it should've.
Plus, who said it worked?
Ordering Guantano closed is one of many "promises" he has made but can't do. I can't believe you listed that. lol It's not closing anytime soon.
Healthcare reform is not an accomplishment, even if it gets passed, you would have to review that in 10 or 20 years.
Nominating Sotomayor is an accomplishment? How has she changed anything for the better?
You are definitely stretching on these. Shows you can't find much on good ol' Obama, the clown.
a helpful site to get the facts is politifact dot com.
it sorts out the facts and fiction.
Obama by the numbers!
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/scorebo … he_numbers
I wonder what would have happened in New York if they had taken the supposed Republican off the ballot? She got 6% of the vote, where do you think they would have gone?
Oh that was something. She endorsed the democrat and republicans still voted for her! I think the republican party is just a democratic party mini-me. They'd probably have gone to the democrats.
I'm amazed the conservative got as much as he did considering he's not a politician and he had no party backing him up.
I predicted a long time ago, Obama will be a one term president and already you can see the disillusionment showing. 2010 will see the republicans retake control of congress as the economy continues to degrade. We will begin to see inflation and interest rates rise. Energy costs will be up, and up significantly if Obama is successful in passing cap and trade. Obama is sowing the seeds of his own destruction and unless he moves more to the middle and begins to work with republicans he'll be finished and his presidency will be nothing more than a footnote in history.
Surely not a footnote. He could go down as the worst president in US history. Another honor to put beside his mantelpiece next to the Nobel Peace Prize!!!
Yeah all those gym workouts put him up for the running for the football career that he'll eventually get around to!
I know and that is what makes it so funny when you respond. You are too easy
Thanks, do you have anymore political commentary about WHY a Republican won in Virginia?
Cherry picking comments from the end of a conversation will set you up. I already answered that waaaaaay back. To save you the time you did not spend catching up I will repeat it. The better candidate won, period. Creigh Deeds led a horrible campaign and Bob McDonnell ran a very credible one. No party preference there. The independents made it happen again. In NJ, Corzine puulease. A horrible legislator and self promoter. Still it was close by about 3 or 4%
Corzine spent 100 million dollars of his own money to try to buy the governorship again. It was this close!
True that! And Obama campaigned heavily for him! I'd say in NJ Obama didn't help which is telling if you ask me!
Remember the Don Imus ordeal and Corzine racing back to get his face in front of the camera. He wrecked his car and broke his leg trying to get that little bit of publicity. What a tool.
I know thats what you said, it was laughable then and its laughable now, 3 or 4% in a DEMOCRAT State is a HUGE VICTORY!! ITS ABOUT OBAMA, no one wants the BS anymore!! Its gonna be fun watching him leave the Whitehouse in disgrace and assuring Republican Presidents for the next 12 years!
What is it like to live in that head? Oh yeah dizzying with the spin you put on everything. Oh I forgot you don't vote so you have no party.
Whats it like? Hmmm, well I don't have to work anymore, I have plenty of money, and I get to laugh at you all day, its Goooooooooood!
You must be very good at it because you certainly haven't done anything here. You are too easy. Predictably wrong, completely biased and truly irrelavent. I am afraid the last laugh is on you.
Stick to Texas; you don't know Jersey. NJ has a history of switching parties for the governor every few years. And as I believe rhamson made clear, it's not as if Christie is one of the nutjob "conservatives."
They'll have to come up with a candidate first.
I'm sure Obama's getting nervous.
It could be President tree stump, but it won't be a 2nd Term President Obama!
I'm a Texan, we ain't Southern, you knew that, right?
Oh so every year Texas leaves the union , did I get that right (too)
No, you didn't, but you should be used to that by now!
Geography is not taught in Texas's school system.
Forget trying to make a point with Texan. He is like a pie in the face. You think when he splats in your face that you may at least have something good to lick up it turns out to be shaving cream. Or for Texan so he can understand, you make a point and he comes back with a mindless empty retort.
And yet YOU seem to have nothing but personal attacks against him.
And you cherry pick conversations as well. Look back over the conversation before you pick a bone with me. You suffer the same selective ridicule as he does so it's no surprise you react the same way.
The tickets get a lot stronger when you have their running mates on them:
It really won't matter who the republicians put up, once Obama is finished destroying the economy even goofy would win against him!
Yeah at least 1/2 of that growth is attributable to the cash for clunkers and mortgage credits and other government stimulus. If Obama manages to pass healthcare, and cap and trade, the damage to the economy will be startling!
And? You do realize that's what stimulus is for, right?
Not according to the CBO. If you want to talk about trillions of unrecoverable spending, look at the Bush record (specifically Iraq and the Medicare "reform").
Which is dwarfed by the spending due to Obama's reforms - all in the first year, not counting Health Reform if it ever passes.
And what stimulus? Unemployment at over 9%, you mean that stimulus?
Almost 10%, The economy will tank after the first of the year, but the majority stimulus money will kick in around October of next year, just in time for an election. Democrats will still lose!
But let's not forget Tex, Obama promised that he won't sign a Health Reform Bill that would put people in to more debt, right after he promised that he would save and create jobs!!!
hi flightkeeper, he always promised things anyway, but after almost a year in the office, he hadnt done anything even for a starter...I always thought that you can only judged politician after his term, I might be wrong this time....
Pretty, you should watch out, the loony liberals are out in force today and just might go berserk over your implication
And the loopy wingnuts are out in even greater force. What, is Free Republic down or something?
Loopy wingnuts describe the crazy liberals. Get your terms right.
Try again. Googling really isn't that difficult.
You're referencing namecalls?!?
That's almost as bad as factchecking an SNL skit!!!
But not as bad as a wingnut thinking 'wingnut' applies to liberals!
Watch it Flightkeeper he's getting frustrated that means he's about to turn you in.
It's understandable sneak, they lost big time. We can be generous.
Shhhhhhhh Livelonger, this day will pass.
Yeah. No matter how hard the WH tries to spin it as "unrelated"
Oh that's right you spinheads are still spinning after losing. I forgot
Well yes he'll be the black equivalent of Jimmy Carter, and hence, the footnote.
I guess we will see what we will see. The party of no change may be what is in store for us. But I hardly think that it will be because of the issues but more based on Americas impatience. We have done it before when Bush the senior was slowly pulling us out of the last recession and it was not fast enough for us. Then Clinton took all the praise.
Oboma is getting a kick out of seeing just how far he can go wtih the American people , he likes to spend money on beer parties in the whitehouse and going on Paris vacations , the dude isn't ever going to do anything worthwhile
Yes, NJ usually votes republican after they've had their fill of loony liberals.
"Some people really expected him to solve every problem in the world and create a utopia within 3 months."
Those people are called Democrats!
Yup, but they are making points, hey Ron is Texas in the South?
Are there magnolias there? Can anyone in the state correctly pronounce the word "nuclear"? Did it secede from the union once and threaten to do so again? Did someone from there develop a great way to cook beef brisket?
And we perfected the art of football, don't you wish you were a Texan? Yes, yes you do!
Houston will get a lesson this Sunday from the man who actually did perfect football
Houston? You watch sellout football? Here is what your map showed me!
2008-09: Florida over Oklahoma
2008-09 Florida over Oklahoma
2007-08: LSU over Ohio State
2006-07: Florida over Ohio State
2005-06: Texas over USC
Since you have all the answers, what state is the most heavily recruited in the country?
A Texan! I haven't seen you in a while. How ya been dude?
I went to Oklahoma to watch Texas beat up on the OK State Cowboys then went to New Orleans to do some drinking! Tired of Flying!
Boy I would be tired of flying too. Wow! You had fun though?
Yup! Had a hangover for two days though, that part sucked!
ewwww! that part does suck. thankfully I have yet to ever have a hangover...got drunk once but once a friend started throwing up I sobered up real fast...I can't stand hearing ppl throwing up..makes me want to puke too. and I'm a preschool teacher go figure
I never had hangovers until I reached 40, then they stared. I don't drink very often now but when I do...
oooo how strange that they started after a certain age for yuo. and like you I don't drink unless it's something special like an anniversary or holiday something like that...Did you take pics whie you were in New Orleans or in Oklahoma?
The South and the Southwest have perfected football, any other Questions?
1998-Tennessee Volunteers 1999-Florida State Seminoles 2000-Oklahoma Sooners 2001-Miami Hurricanes 2002-Ohio State Buckeyes 2003-Louisiana State Tigers/Southern California Trojans 2004-Southern California Trojans 2005-Texas Longhorns 2006-Florida Gators 2007LSU 2008 Florida
Just one, if you're not Southern, why are you so proud of Southern college football teams? Are you one a them damned carpetbaggers?
I'm Texan, just proving who has the best football! We have high school teams that would beat Arizona or Arizona State, probably the Colts too!
Forget Bush Dem's you're in it up to your eyeballs. Who's going to pay for this stuff?
If there was a referendum on Obama, it would have to be NY-23, which tends to vote Republican, and that had Palin, Limbaugh and plenty of out-of-state money plumping for the "real conservative" Hoffman.
What explains his loss? (i.e. start spinning)
He was unknown until about 30 days ago! Thats not spin its fact, and still he managed to get 44% of the vote!
Terrific spinning! This is a GOP district, that has voted conservative for decades, and that is replacing a Republican who joined Obama's cabinet (what?!).
Explain why he ONLY won 44% of the vote...
You said it, Republican. He was not the Republican candidate, did that fact escape you?
Are you saying that NY-23 just votes in RINOs?
The repub candidate endorsed a democrat.
Yes, the RINO endorsed the Democrat. And the "true conservative" lost. What does that say about NY-23's voting preferences?
And what does it say that NJ & VA voted in center-right "RINOs" and not Palin- and Limbaugh-backed populists?
That says more about the republicans than anything else.
Yes keep in mind 6% voted for someone that was no longer in the race! Had those votes gone to the conservative, he would be the winner!
I'm saying 6 % of the voters voted for a Republican who had dropped out of the race and endorsed a Democrat. I have no Idea what voters in NY do, but they elected Bloomberg as mayor of NYC and he is a Republican in name only!
Yes, that tends to happen in every election. So even the RINO's endorsement of a Dem didn't have an effect on this 6%.
Yeah, a lot of those RINOs are getting elected - certainly more than the "true conservatives", right?
I'm not sure where you get the RINO term for NJ/Virginia governors but whatever. Wingnut is used for both extreme viewpoints, just because Liberals resort to namecalling more often than conservatives is just more proof of their ineffectiveness!
They're center-right and not involved in the cultural revolt obsessions of Palin and her cohort of populists.
Wingnut = term for conservatives
Moonbat = term for liberals
Really, Googling is NOT that hard.
Yes Tex, that's spin. Concentrate on this minor district vote instead of the two state governorships that the loony liberals lost, especially in NJ, a state that is so blue and where Corzine spent 100 million dollars and where the Great Organizer stumped for him.
"is used in United States politics as a political epithet referring to a person who holds extreme political views. According to Merriam-Webster, it is analogous with the word "radical." In American politics, the term is more often aimed at members of the political right than those of the political left."
From your own source
"the term is more often aimed at members of the political right than those of the political left."
Does it say its never used to describe the Left? Noooooooooo, it doesn't!
gotta go, there's a skunk in our yard and it's lunch time.
RON!!! another dude I haven't seen in a long time!! Heya Ron
Hello Darling....Nice ta' seeya'...............IT"S BEEN A LONG TIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIME.
It seriously has been a long time...where ya been? I've missed reading your comments and chatting with you on here
Uhh, you said the same thing to me last week. I really am never gone all that long. (Much to Tex's chagrin)
Oh My goodness now I see why I try to avoid these forums but I do enjoy reading everyone's thoughts. **sigh**
Why call them "Obama Speeches"? We all know they don't write their own speeches.....why should we pretend?
I watched an interview on HNN with Obama's main speech writer, during the report they showed her giving Obama his speech so he could go over it and practice it before he went on...LOL
You are both wrong they are politicians and their positions and views are for sale. Pick one, any one.
Rhamson:The fact remains that with the current healthcare system we have there will be a breakdown and it will be impossible to afford very shortly and there is only one organization that can offer a solution. If you wait too long there will be no system you will be able to afford. Other countries have realized this, made the decision and moved on.
Deeds: Very true.
I disagree. The present bill does nothing to lower cost. If you look at MA and their health care plan, the costs are rising faster than the national average.
The present bill also contains a mandate to buy insurance. Clearly this is unconstitutional.
As ledefensetech said, we all have a right to pursue happiness, it's not guaranteed. If you choose not to buy health insurance until you get sick and then you can't get it, well that was your choice wasn't it? That's what made you happy at the time, right?
If you really want to insure everybody, the best way is to make everyone in the country wealthy and the best way to do that is not to tax labor, risk, investment and savings and keep government small and regulation to a minimum.
If you wish to cite select failures then I guess you are correct. But if you look to the north and look to the east your argument becomes mute.
Your thinking that by overturning the system with making everybody wealthy through the means you suggest is a pipe dream. Once again power to the individual through the means you express is doomed to fail because just like every other entrepeneur out there in your utopian freedom you will have to find a particular trick or method to succeed. I am sorry but I don't wish to leave my healthcare and my childrens healthcare up to chance.
A "californicated" GOP endangers the nation!
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/09/opini … ef=opinion
Now I understand. You get all of your "wisdom" from Krugman. You and he are aware, I'm sure, that California has gone broke, right? The high tax has turned an economy that is larger than most nations in the world into one on the brink of collapse.
by Longhunter4 years ago
In the wake of the ill-conceived Fast & Furious program, the death of a border agent Brian Terry, and hundreds, maybe thousands, of Mexicans being killed by the drug cartels using these guns, does Obama taking...
by Grace Marguerite Williams2 years ago
they saw President Barack Obama as the president of promise and reformation? During President Obama's administration, unemployment and national debt is the HIGHEST it has been. More and more civil...
by Brenda Durham5 years ago
Are they still so enamored of Obama that he's the only candidate they'll consider?Is there no other Democrat who wants to run for President, and if so, why do you think that is?
by mio cid2 years ago
President Obama's jigsaw puzzle strategy is winning him support of women,youth,immigrants and hispanics,black voters,union workers etc. Romney's strategy is based on how bad a president Obama has been and pandering to...
by Stacie L4 years ago
"It is sad and disappointing to watch Pres. Obama trample on the successes of the middle-class by taking credit for auto's recovery. Obama acts as if he built and designed the cars today that are outselling their...
by lady_love1585 years ago
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/ … increases/Really, and people think this guy is a genius? Why does he insist on making ideological proposals that even his own party wont support? This president is beyond...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.