On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 15:27:53 -0400, NotNow wrote:

JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
JustWait wrote:
In article ,
says...
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:03 pm, Guzzistimo wrote:
If the rationale for invading Iraq was to get their oil, what's
Obama's rationale for Afghanistan -- Heroin?

hey idiot...

you guys are amazing.

uh...questions for you:


1. when did US troops enter afghanistan?
2. how long has obama been president

take your head out of your diaper...
Obama could have pulled the US troops out of Afghanistan by now. All it
takes is an order to Sec Def Gates.
You mean, he really didn't mean it when he was running for POTUS?? Oh
my, hope I still get my free car and oil

Please show me where Obama said he'd give you a free car and oil.
Another right wing fallacy.
Everything isn't a "right wing fallacy" just because you don't agree
with it. See, that is the difference between the right and the left. I
accept that you may have a different point of view. It doesn't mean your
lying, it doesn't mean you are stupid, racist, or any of the other "left
wing fallacies".. Just a different point of view...

Either way, you should have figured out by now that I don't take much of
this seriously here... I really don't have the time to argue and
research all the crap that goes on. The kid is in the points race and
working very hard. I am trying to keep up and get her and the machine
where it needs to be... That is a full time job in itself...

No but the lies the right has propagated lately are being gobbled up by
the conservatives as truth no matter HOW outlandish they are. That's the
whole point.

And yet, you can't really point to any lies that are not considered
truth by at least 80% of the people out there reading the bills and
getting informed... Just because you call a "death panel" an "end of
life panel" doesn't mean it's a lie.. It is what it is... Word games
aside...

Sure I can. You DO know that the U.S. government has promoted living
wills for more than 20 years, don't you? Oh, forgot, that's a "death
panel". Read carefully:

http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/...alth-bill.html

Here's your hero lying to you, and then a clip of him endorsing living
wills!!!

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2..._lies_on_h.php

Political Debate - 5 Rightwing Lies About Healthcare Reform Back to
Topics Page: 1 of 3


From: Zohan of Social Sciences (1 of 23) 8/16/2009 7:29:08 AM
To:
Top Five Health Care Reform Lies—and How to Fight Back
Lie #1: President Obama wants to euthanize your grandma!!!

The truth: These accusations—of "death panels" and forced
euthanasia—are, of course, flatly untrue. As an article from the
Associated Press puts it: "No 'death panel' in health care bill."4
What's the real deal? Reform legislation includes a provision, supported
by the AARP, to offer senior citizens access to a professional medical
counselor who will provide them with information on preparing a living
will and other issues facing older Americans.5


Lie #2: Democrats are going to outlaw private insurance and force you
into a government plan!!!

The truth: With reform, choices will increase, not decrease. Obama's
reform plans will create a health insurance exchange, a one-stop
shopping marketplace for affordable, high-quality insurance options.6
Included in the exchange is the public health insurance option—a
nationwide plan with a broad network of providers—that will operate
alongside private insurance companies, injecting competition into the
market to drive quality up and costs down.7

If you're happy with your coverage and doctors, you can keep them.8 But
the new public plan will expand choices to millions of businesses or
individuals who choose to opt into it, including many who simply can't
afford health care now.


Lie #3: President Obama wants to implement Soviet-style rationing!!!


The truth: Health care reform will expand access to high-quality health
insurance, and give individuals, families, and businesses more choices
for coverage. Right now, big corporations decide whether to give you
coverage, what doctors you get to see, and whether a particular
procedure or medicine is covered—that is rationed care. And a big part
of reform is to stop that.


Health care reform will do away with some of the most nefarious aspects
of this rationing: discrimination for pre-existing conditions, insurers
that cancel coverage when you get sick, gender discrimination, and
lifetime and yearly limits on coverage.9 And outside of that, as noted
above, reform will increase insurance options, not force anyone into a
rationed situation.


Lie #4: Obama is secretly plotting to cut senior citizens' Medicare
benefits!!!

The truth: Health care reform plans will not reduce Medicare benefits.10
Reform includes savings from Medicare that are unrelated to patient
care—in fact, the savings comes from cutting billions of dollars in
overpayments to insurance companies and eliminating waste, fraud, and
abuse.11

Lie #5: Obama's health care plan will bankrupt America!!!

The truth: We need health care reform now in order to prevent
bankruptcy—to control spiraling costs that affect individuals, families,
small businesses, and the American economy.

Right now, we spend more than $2 trillion dollars a year on health
care.12 The average family premium is projected to rise to over $22,000
in the next decade13—and each year, nearly a million people face
bankruptcy because of medical expenses.14 Reform, with an affordable,
high-quality public option that can spur competition, is necessary to
bring down skyrocketing costs. Also, President Obama's reform plans
would be fully paid for over 10 years and not add a penny to the deficit.15

Nope, no lies there.....

I think you should believe all those 'truths'. They sound pretty good
to me.

Is Obama really going to pay off our mortgages? Seems like I saw
someone say that on YouTube also.
--
John H

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous

In article ,
says...

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:42:35 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 25, 2:33*pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:

The Taliban never conducted state sponsored terrorism. The Taliban was
used by OBL and AQ as a base of operations because Afghanistan is the
anus of the Earth.-

you say potatoes...i say po-tah-toes...

blah blah blah

You agree with me that the Taliban did not attach the USA.-

who are the taliban? and, no, i don't agree.

do you know what the 'USA' is?

Did you not say this?

"disrupting the ability of the taliban to conduct state sponsored
terrorism. i realize that, to you folks in the 'neville chamberlain
fan club', that's a horrible thought. but to those of us who were in
NY after 9/11, it's kind of important"

Did you not know of whom you spoke? You don't know who the Taliban
are, yet you say the reason we're in Afghanistan is to disrupt their
activities.

In another breath you call folks stupid.

He is a cut and paste expert.. Most of his posts are simply regurgitated
bumper sticker slogans... KF him, you will be better off...

--
Wafa free since 2009

On Aug 25, 4:07*pm, Mille GT Owner wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:30:14 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Aug 25, 8:11*am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:11 am, Guzzistimo wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:42:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"

wrote:
"Guzzistimo" wrote in message
...
If the rationale for invading Iraq was to get their oil, what's
Obama's rationale for Afghanistan -- Heroin?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/wo....html?_r=1&th&....
--
John H
"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous
Perhaps it's to fix the mess that Bush neglected to fix?
Right-wing nut = loves Taliban
Here comes the Bush Rationale again.

What 'mess' is Obama trying to fix? That's the original question?
--

the mess that bush was unable to develop a strategy to build an
effective security apparatus in afghanistan.

And you believe that Obama is going to fix Afghanistan? Nobody has ever
fixed Afghanistan.-

sure they have.

you're just too dumb to realize it.

And you call others dumb and stupid?

--


no...no. you'll suffice. i believe you exceed all others.

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 14:41:51 GMT, (Richard
Casady) wrote:

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 20:03:19 -0400, Guzzistimo
wrote:

If the rationale for invading Iraq was to get their oil, what's
Obama's rationale for Afghanistan -- Heroin?

What would it cost to buy all the opium? Have to be the bargain of the
century. The dope is financing the Taliban, reason enough to **** with
the trade,

Casady

If he stated our reason for being in Afghanistan was to stop the opium
trade, at least we would have a reason.

My next question would be, "Why us?" Why are we the power concerned
with the opium trade? Why are we not in Columbia stopping the cocaine
trade, or Mexico with the marijuana trade, or even California with the
marijuana trade?
--
John H

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous

wf3h wrote:
On Aug 25, 4:07 pm, Mille GT Owner wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 09:30:14 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Aug 25, 8:11 am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 25, 7:11 am, Guzzistimo wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:42:07 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:
"Guzzistimo" wrote in message
...
If the rationale for invading Iraq was to get their oil, what's
Obama's rationale for Afghanistan -- Heroin?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/wo....html?_r=1&th&....
--
John H
"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous
Perhaps it's to fix the mess that Bush neglected to fix?
Right-wing nut = loves Taliban
Here comes the Bush Rationale again.
What 'mess' is Obama trying to fix? That's the original question?
--
the mess that bush was unable to develop a strategy to build an
effective security apparatus in afghanistan.
And you believe that Obama is going to fix Afghanistan? Nobody has ever
fixed Afghanistan.-
sure they have.
you're just too dumb to realize it.
And you call others dumb and stupid?

--


no...no. you'll suffice. i believe you exceed all others.


I can't decide who is the dumbest poster he

Loogy
JustWait
Herring
Lu-ser

So many choices.

Vic Smith wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:16:25 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 24, 9:53 pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:
On Aug 24, 8:03 pm, Guzzistimo wrote:
If the rationale for invading Iraq was to get their oil, what's
Obama's rationale for Afghanistan -- Heroin?
hey idiot...
you guys are amazing.
uh...questions for you:
1. when did US troops enter afghanistan?
2. how long has obama been president
take your head out of your diaper...
Obama could have pulled the US troops out of Afghanistan by now. All it
takes is an order to Sec Def Gates.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
this is called 'surrender' or 'appeasement'...whichever you prefer.

Obama's got the Reps sucking up gov cash for clunkers welfare,
supporting Medicare, and calling for an increase in SS payments.
Might as well turn them into appeasers of Muslim terrorism too.

--Vic

Good gawd this place has gone ****ing LUNATIC. Now liberals are
"appeasers of Muslim terrorism".

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:12:03 -0400, Mille GT Owner
wrote:



Obama's got the Reps sucking up gov cash for clunkers welfare,
supporting Medicare, and calling for an increase in SS payments.
Might as well turn them into appeasers of Muslim terrorism too.

--Vic

So staying in Afghanistan is for what purpose? Do we stay there simply
so we don't 'appease' Muslims by getting out?

Supposedly to put the nail in the coffin of Al Qaeda, and make sure
they don't come back. Nation building started by the Bush crew, and
now supported by Dem and Rep alike.
They've all fallen into the "protect the women" and
"one-person-one-vote" bandwagon too.
Personally, I would get out and let the savages find their own path to
Allah. If they give us trouble later, nuke 'em.
But I'm not a Dem or Rep.

--Vic

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 16:13:54 -0400, Mille GT Owner
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:57:45 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:19:32 -0400, BAR wrote:



I practically got a free car yesterday. I now have a brand new Nissan
Versa and the $4,500 you all kicked in paid for nearly half of the
vehicle. I stroked a check for the rest. Just doing my part to help the
economy according to Congress and Obama's rules.

Congratulations!
Good to see you admit gov welfare is ok when it goes in your pocket.
Honesty is a virtue.

--Vic

Whooooosh.

Sucking on the gov teat when it's offered gets the same taxpayer milk
as when you demand it.
And it's good to be honest about it.
Of course if you want to take the side that you just did it help the
economy, that works too.
That's the Obama side.
Your choice.

--Vic

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:06:43 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 25, 4:01*pm, Mille GT Owner wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 04:18:52 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Aug 25, 7:08*am, Guzzistimo wrote:
On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:37:16 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 24, 8:03*pm, Guzzistimo wrote:
If the rationale for invading Iraq was to get their oil, what's
Obama's rationale for Afghanistan -- Heroin?

hey idiot...

you guys are amazing.

uh...questions for you:

1. when did US troops enter afghanistan?
2. how long has obama been president

take your head out of your diaper...

What difference does either question make?

Obama has had plenty of time to pull out of Afghanistan, and Iraq for
that matter.

Why are we still in Afghanistan. What does Obama hope to get out of
our involvement there?
--

disrupting the ability of the taliban to conduct state sponsored
terrorism. i realize that, to you folks in the 'neville chamberlain
fan club', that's a horrible thought. but to those of us who were in
NY after 9/11, it's kind of important

What state sponsored terrorism did the Taliban conduct? They've not
attacked us.
--


ever hear of 9/11? you guys keep saying the taliban is like the girl
scouts. when i point out the date of 9/11

i never hear from you again. whatsamatter? dont remember that day?

The Taliban did not attack us on 9/11.

A while back, the liberals were blaming Saudia Arabia and Bush for
9/11. Now you're using it as a rationale for staying in Afghanistan.
Y'all need to make up your minds.
--
John H

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 13:05:50 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:

On Aug 25, 4:04*pm, Mille GT Owner wrote:
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:42:35 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote:





On Aug 25, 2:33*pm, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote:

The Taliban never conducted state sponsored terrorism. The Taliban was
used by OBL and AQ as a base of operations because Afghanistan is the
anus of the Earth.-

you say potatoes...i say po-tah-toes...

blah blah blah

You agree with me that the Taliban did not attach the USA.-

who are the taliban? and, no, i don't agree.

do you know what the 'USA' is?

Did you not say this?

"disrupting the ability of the taliban to conduct state sponsored
terrorism. i realize that, to you folks in the 'neville chamberlain
fan club', that's a horrible thought. but to those of us who were in
NY after 9/11, it's kind of important"

Did you not know of whom you spoke? You don't know who the Taliban
are, yet you say the reason we're in Afghanistan is to disrupt their
activities.

In another breath you call folks stupid.


i suggest you try following the thread instead pretending you
understand it. your evaluation of your own reading skills is pathetic.

You bypassed that one, didn't you?

Did you not say this?

"disrupting the ability of the taliban to conduct state sponsored
terrorism. i realize that, to you folks in the 'neville chamberlain
fan club', that's a horrible thought. but to those of us who were in
NY after 9/11, it's kind of important"

Did you not know of whom you spoke? You don't know who the Taliban
are, yet you say the reason we're in Afghanistan is to disrupt their
activities.

In another breath you call folks stupid.
--
John H

"If you think healthcare is expensive now, wait until it's free!"
--Anonymous