|
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote:
Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote: So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today? Never said that. But the history that counts starts today. Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I didn't buy the car today? Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many liberals think Iraq was a bad idea. -- Calling an Illegal Alien an "Undocumented Worker" is like calling a Crack Dealer an "Unlicensed Pharmacist" John H |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote: Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote: So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today? Never said that. But the history that counts starts today. Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I didn't buy the car today? Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many liberals think Iraq was a bad idea. -- Maybe because he is doing what HE thinks is right, as opposed to doing what Rush thinks is right. |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:57:40 -0400, NotNow wrote:
John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote: Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote: So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today? Never said that. But the history that counts starts today. Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I didn't buy the car today? Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many liberals think Iraq was a bad idea. -- Maybe because he is doing what HE thinks is right, as opposed to doing what Rush thinks is right. I believe Rush thought Iraq was a good idea. I guess he and BO are thinking alike on this issue. As long as we all understand whose war it is now. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
On Sep 2, 2:32*pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote: Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many liberals think Iraq was a bad idea. -- because we know bush ****ed it up so bad that we now have to clean the mess up before we leave. i know that, to rednecks, they think liberals want to cut and run, but that shows how little rednecks know about anything |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:18:37 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote: On Sep 2, 2:32*pm, John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote: Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many liberals think Iraq was a bad idea. -- because we know bush ****ed it up so bad that we now have to clean the mess up before we leave. i know that, to rednecks, they think liberals want to cut and run, but that shows how little rednecks know about anything Uh, uh, what mess? -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
On Sep 2, 3:22*pm, John H. wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:18:37 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: On Sep 2, 2:32*pm, John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote: Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many liberals think Iraq was a bad idea. -- because we know bush ****ed it up so bad that we now have to clean the mess up before we leave. i know that, to rednecks, they think liberals want to cut and run, but that shows how little rednecks know about anything Uh, uh, what mess? that you don't know tells us why we're in the mess we're in |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote:
Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote: So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today? Never said that. But the history that counts starts today. Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I didn't buy the car today? Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Again, I never said anything about the past not having a bearing on today. You just falsely accuse me of that. Obama ran for Prez to lead the economy, I hope. It's Obama's economy now. He's got plenty of slack cut for him. You don't think GWB will make your car payments, do you? Like I told Eisboch, when I lost my job because of the bad economy during The Great Reagan Depression in 1982 - much worse than now BTW - I didn't blame Jimmy Carter for that depression. He was gone. Eisboch wanted to blame Carter , because he was a sap for Ronnie Raygun. So to make that work, he had to defend Obama with Bush's sins. I don't play that game. There's only one decider at a time. If things continue to get worse and you lose your job, good luck blaming GWB. He won't make your car payments, and you'll be looking for Obama to get you back on your feet. Whether you or anybody else likes it or not, GWB is gone. History. And good riddance too. --Vic |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
NotNow wrote:
Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote: So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today? Never said that. But the history that counts starts today. Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I didn't buy the car today? Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Until recently we were paying a tax on our telephone whose original purpose had long since passed. History does count. Unfortunately there are those that would rather repeat the mistakes of the past than learn from history. Consider the lessons from the thirties that are being ignored. The democrats tried to spend the country out of the depression. It took twenty years and two wars before the country was able to extract is self from that spending spree. Yet what is obama doing today? Adding two trillion dollars to the deficit to get the country out of what he considers a depression. How many years and wars will it take the US to get out of obama's fiasco? |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
On Sep 2, 5:32*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote: Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote: So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today? Never said that. *But the history that counts starts today. Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I didn't buy the car today? Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Again, I never said anything about the past not having a bearing on today. * You just falsely accuse me of that. Obama ran for Prez to lead the economy, I hope. It's Obama's economy now. *He's got plenty of slack cut for him. You don't think GWB will make your car payments, do you? Like I told Eisboch, when I lost my job because of the bad economy during The Great Reagan Depression in 1982 - much worse than now BTW - i was there too. that one was child's play compared to bush's fiasco I didn't blame Jimmy Carter for that depression. *He was gone. Eisboch wanted to blame Carter , because he was a sap for Ronnie Raygun. So to make that work, he had to defend Obama with Bush's sins. I don't play that game. *There's only one decider at a time. If things continue to get worse and you lose your job, good luck blaming GWB. *He won't make your car payments, and you'll be looking for Obama to get you back on your feet. uh...no. what looking at history does is, hopefully, prevent you from making the same mistake twice...like voting for a right wing president who says 'trust the free market'. |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
On Sep 2, 5:45*pm, Keith Nuttle wrote:
NotNow wrote: Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote: So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today? Never said that. *But the history that counts starts today. Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I didn't buy the car today? Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Until recently we were paying a tax on our telephone whose original purpose had long since passed. *History does count. Unfortunately there are those that would rather repeat the mistakes of the past than learn from history. *Consider the lessons from the thirties that are being ignored. The democrats tried to spend the country out of the depression. *It took twenty years and two wars before the country was able to extract is self from that spending spree. *Yet what is obama doing today? *Adding two trillion dollars to the deficit to *get the country out of what he considers a depression. How many years and wars will it take the US to get out of obama's fiasco? he's implementing good economics that the republicans themselves tried to get started last year. you don't know much about economics, do you? |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
"Keith Nuttle" wrote in message
... Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Until recently we were paying a tax on our telephone whose original purpose had long since passed. History does count. Unfortunately there are those that would rather repeat the mistakes of the past than learn from history. Consider the lessons from the thirties that are being ignored. The democrats tried to spend the country out of the depression. It took twenty years and two wars before the country was able to extract is self from that spending spree. Yet what is obama doing today? Adding two trillion dollars to the deficit to get the country out of what he considers a depression. How many years and wars will it take the US to get out of obama's fiasco? How about we give him 1/2 the time to get us going in the opposite direction than the time we spent getting into the mess? Does that seem fair? -- Nom=de=Plume |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:50:36 -0700 (PDT), wf3h
wrote: Like I told Eisboch, when I lost my job because of the bad economy during The Great Reagan Depression in 1982 - much worse than now BTW - i was there too. that one was child's play compared to bush's fiasco Depends. You know they say a recession is when a neighbor loses his job and a depression is when you lose yours. I lost mine then. I'm doing much, much better now than I was then. There are many ways to look at it, some being how accurately the unemployment stats reflect reality, how much unemployment comp is available, etc, etc. But going by unemployment stats alone, http://www.davemanuel.com/historical...ted-states.php "The highest rate for a single month is shared by November and December of 1982 with an unemployment rate of 10.8% The year with the highest average unemployment rate was 1982 with an average unemployment rate of 9.71%" I didn't blame Jimmy Carter for that depression. Â*He was gone. Eisboch wanted to blame Carter , because he was a sap for Ronnie Raygun. So to make that work, he had to defend Obama with Bush's sins. I don't play that game. Â*There's only one decider at a time. If things continue to get worse and you lose your job, good luck blaming GWB. Â*He won't make your car payments, and you'll be looking for Obama to get you back on your feet. uh...no. what looking at history does is, hopefully, prevent you from making the same mistake twice...like voting for a right wing president who says 'trust the free market'. Uh, no what? Are you saying that GWB is going to keep Loogy working and making car payments? You're a bit behind times. A right wing Prez wasn't elected. Obama was elected, so that history you speak of already worked. Now there's a new history being made. You forgot already? It's a new game. Obama's got the ball. You going to blame or credit everything he does to GWB? Or maybe just blame GWB and credit Obama. I had no use for GWB, but I'll use my same criteria to judge Obama. --Vic |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
|
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
|
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
|
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
On Sep 2, 9:04*pm, Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:50:36 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: Like I told Eisboch, when I lost my job because of the bad economy during The Great Reagan Depression in 1982 - much worse than now BTW - i was there too. that one was child's play compared to bush's fiasco Depends. *You know they say a recession is when a neighbor loses his job and a depression is when you lose yours. *I lost mine then. I'm doing much, much better now than I was then. There are many ways to look at it, some being how accurately the unemployment stats reflect reality, how much unemployment comp is available, etc, etc. But going by unemployment stats alone,http://www.davemanuel.com/historical...-in-the-united... "The highest rate for a single month is shared by November and December of 1982 with an unemployment rate of 10.8% The year with the highest average unemployment rate was 1982 with an average unemployment rate of 9.71%" unemployment right now is about 9.5 and will probably go to 11% next year I didn't blame Jimmy Carter for that depression. *He was gone. Eisboch wanted to blame Carter , because he was a sap for Ronnie Raygun. So to make that work, he had to defend Obama with Bush's sins. I don't play that game. *There's only one decider at a time. If things continue to get worse and you lose your job, good luck blaming GWB. *He won't make your car payments, and you'll be looking for Obama to get you back on your feet. uh...no. what looking at history does is, hopefully, prevent you from making the same mistake twice...like voting for a right wing president who says 'trust the free market'. Uh, no what? *Are you saying that GWB is going to keep Loogy working and making car payments? *You're a bit behind times. A right wing Prez wasn't elected. *Obama was elected, so that history you speak of already worked. * and hopefully we wont buy the lies of the right and trash obama. bush lied for 8 years and the right sucked his dick. obama's trying to help the middle class and the right are going after him with torches and pitchforks |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:57:40 -0400, NotNow wrote: John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote: Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote: So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today? Never said that. But the history that counts starts today. Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I didn't buy the car today? Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many liberals think Iraq was a bad idea. -- Maybe because he is doing what HE thinks is right, as opposed to doing what Rush thinks is right. I believe Rush thought Iraq was a good idea. I guess he and BO are thinking alike on this issue. As long as we all understand whose war it is now. -- John H Do you think it would be easier to withdraw from a war that someone started for some unknown reason, or to have not started it in the first place? Are you of the mindset that what happened in the past has no bearing on what happens now? |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
NotNow wrote:
Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote: So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today? Never said that. But the history that counts starts today. Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I didn't buy the car today? Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. How far back do you want to go and are you willing to look at both sides of the political aisle? |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 2, 3:22 pm, John H. wrote: On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:18:37 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: On Sep 2, 2:32 pm, John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote: Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many liberals think Iraq was a bad idea. -- because we know bush ****ed it up so bad that we now have to clean the mess up before we leave. i know that, to rednecks, they think liberals want to cut and run, but that shows how little rednecks know about anything Uh, uh, what mess? that you don't know tells us why we're in the mess we're in that you can't state what the mess is tells us you don't know what you are talking about but, you still have the issue don't you |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
John H. wrote:
On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:18:37 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: On Sep 2, 2:32 pm, John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote: Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many liberals think Iraq was a bad idea. -- because we know bush ****ed it up so bad that we now have to clean the mess up before we leave. i know that, to rednecks, they think liberals want to cut and run, but that shows how little rednecks know about anything Uh, uh, what mess? -- John H The infrastructure is in shambles, Bush promised to rebuild it. |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 2, 5:45 pm, Keith Nuttle wrote: NotNow wrote: Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote: So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today? Never said that. But the history that counts starts today. Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I didn't buy the car today? Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Until recently we were paying a tax on our telephone whose original purpose had long since passed. History does count. Unfortunately there are those that would rather repeat the mistakes of the past than learn from history. Consider the lessons from the thirties that are being ignored. The democrats tried to spend the country out of the depression. It took twenty years and two wars before the country was able to extract is self from that spending spree. Yet what is obama doing today? Adding two trillion dollars to the deficit to get the country out of what he considers a depression. How many years and wars will it take the US to get out of obama's fiasco? he's implementing good economics that the republicans themselves tried to get started last year. you don't know much about economics, do you? What "good ecomonics" is Obama implementing? You do understand that the government does not create wealth. Ask the USSR, oops can't do that can you they went bankrupt. China understands it because they have private businesses. |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
On Sep 3, 9:00*am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote: On Sep 2, 3:22 pm, John H. wrote: On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:18:37 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: On Sep 2, 2:32 pm, John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote: Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many liberals think Iraq was a bad idea. -- because we know bush ****ed it up so bad that we now have to clean the mess up before we leave. i know that, to rednecks, they think liberals want to cut and run, but that shows how little rednecks know about anything Uh, uh, what mess? that you don't know tells us why we're in the mess we're in that you can't state what the mess is tells us you don't know what you are talking about but, you still have the issue don't you- the mess is that we've been there for 8 years and still haven't resolve the problem. i know to you right wingers, that's not an issue because a right wing president was failing, but to patriotic americans, it IS a problem and part of the problem is that you, like bush, can't see the problem |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 2, 9:04 pm, Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 16:50:36 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: Like I told Eisboch, when I lost my job because of the bad economy during The Great Reagan Depression in 1982 - much worse than now BTW - i was there too. that one was child's play compared to bush's fiasco Depends. You know they say a recession is when a neighbor loses his job and a depression is when you lose yours. I lost mine then. I'm doing much, much better now than I was then. There are many ways to look at it, some being how accurately the unemployment stats reflect reality, how much unemployment comp is available, etc, etc. But going by unemployment stats alone,http://www.davemanuel.com/historical...-in-the-united... "The highest rate for a single month is shared by November and December of 1982 with an unemployment rate of 10.8% The year with the highest average unemployment rate was 1982 with an average unemployment rate of 9.71%" unemployment right now is about 9.5 and will probably go to 11% next year What is Obama doing to encourage job growth in the USA? The answer nothing. I didn't blame Jimmy Carter for that depression. He was gone. Eisboch wanted to blame Carter , because he was a sap for Ronnie Raygun. So to make that work, he had to defend Obama with Bush's sins. I don't play that game. There's only one decider at a time. If things continue to get worse and you lose your job, good luck blaming GWB. He won't make your car payments, and you'll be looking for Obama to get you back on your feet. uh...no. what looking at history does is, hopefully, prevent you from making the same mistake twice...like voting for a right wing president who says 'trust the free market'. Uh, no what? Are you saying that GWB is going to keep Loogy working and making car payments? You're a bit behind times. A right wing Prez wasn't elected. Obama was elected, so that history you speak of already worked. and hopefully we wont buy the lies of the right and trash obama. bush lied for 8 years and the right sucked his dick. obama's trying to help the middle class and the right are going after him with torches and pitchforks Obama is bending the middle class over as well as the upper class and the lower class and giving them all a good ****ing. Obama is hell bent on reducing everyone to the least common denominator, it is easier to control them then. |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
On Sep 3, 9:09*am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote: unemployment right now is about 9.5 and will probably go to 11% next year What is Obama doing to encourage job growth in the USA? The answer nothing. IOW you haven't heard of the TARP program no surprise. right wingers don't know about keynsian economics. and hopefully we wont buy the lies of the right and trash obama. bush lied for 8 years and the right sucked his dick. *obama's trying to help the middle class and the right are going after him with torches and pitchforks Obama is bending the middle class over as well as the upper class and the lower class and giving them all a good ****ing. bush only ****ed the middle class. at least obama is talking about regulating the market. bush seemed to think that as long as the rich were rich, everything was fine Obama is hell bent on reducing everyone to the least common denominator, it is easier to control them then.- and the rich not only DID this but got sock puppet like you to shill for them |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
On Sep 3, 9:04*am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote: he's implementing good economics that the republicans themselves tried to get started last year. *you don't know much about economics, do you? What "good ecomonics" is Obama implementing? high govt spending to make up for lack of consumer demand. You do understand that the government does not create wealth. nor has the free market in the last year. in fact the free market DESTROYED wealth. you just seem to want to ignore the data. Ask the USSR, oops can't do that can you they went bankrupt. China understands it because they have private businesses.- china's economy grew faster than ours did last year. you were saying about how the rich help the middle class? |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
wf3h wrote:
On Sep 3, 7:26 am, thunder wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 17:45:50 -0400, Keith Nuttle wrote: Unfortunately there are those that would rather repeat the mistakes of the past than learn from history. Consider the lessons from the thirties that are being ignored. The democrats tried to spend the country out of the depression. Where to you come up with this BS? The Keynesian gripe about FDR was that he didn't spend enough to fight the Depression. Hoover brought the national debt from 20% GNP to 40% GNP. FDR never went over 40% until WWII. If anything, FDR was too timid in his spending. Note the balanced budget in 1938. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/data/budget.php exactly. if spending is the issue then it doesn't matter in the short term whether it's the consumer or the govt is spending. someone needs to drive the economy. Where does the government get its money? From the consumer? Where does the consumer get its money? From jobs. No jobs, no consumer money. No consumer money, no money for the government. At a company when sales are reduced you still have to pay everyone. Or, you could reduce your expenses by eliminating jobs, the fastest and easiest way to reduce expenses. But if you reduced taxes on the companies and the workers there is more money for companies to keep people on the payroll and less money to pay unemployment. Reducing taxes worked for Kennedy why won't it work for Obama? the real problem we're facing now is that business hasn't learned you can't grow the economy by laying off consumers. The government hasn't realized that when times are tough you can't sustain your revenue by squeezing money from rock. When the government puts a company out of business because it can't pay the taxes what happens to all of the employees of that company? |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
On Sep 3, 9:17*am, BAR wrote:
wf3h wrote: exactly. if spending is the issue then it doesn't matter in the short term whether it's the consumer or the govt is spending. *someone needs to drive the economy. Where does the government get its money? From the consumer? no, it doesn't. right now it borrows it. learn some economics. Where does the consumer get its money? From jobs. which have collapsed courtesy of the 'free market' No jobs, no consumer money. No consumer money, no money for the government. |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
|
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
|
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
|
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
JustWait wrote:
In article , says... John H. wrote: On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:18:37 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: On Sep 2, 2:32 pm, John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote: Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many liberals think Iraq was a bad idea. -- because we know bush ****ed it up so bad that we now have to clean the mess up before we leave. i know that, to rednecks, they think liberals want to cut and run, but that shows how little rednecks know about anything Uh, uh, what mess? -- John H The infrastructure is in shambles, Bush promised to rebuild it. It's a lot better than when we went in. Girls are in school for one... Bull****!!! "The reasons for the intense support for al-Zaidi is that the people of Iraq have been experiencing the grim realities of life after the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of their country in 2003. Iraq’s physical infrastructure, destroyed by the invasion, continues to be in disrepair despite the Bush administration’s claims that $69 billion has been invested in Iraq. At least 100,000 Iraqi civilians have died owing to the occupation. Two million Iraqis have been forced to flee the country and live in squalid refugee camps. The number of internally displaced persons is said to be even larger." Max Boot, neocon editorialist and Senior Fellow at the Council of Foreign Relations (CFR) wrote in an opinion column that; "It was no accident that he [Rumsfeld] neglected the kind of post-invasion planning needed to implement the sweeping changes envisioned by his boss, George W. Bush, and his erstwhile deputy, Paul Wolfowitz." Daniel Goure, neocon nuclear-warhawk, summed it up on the CFR website. "It is either an illegal, immoral, or mistaken enterprise foisted on the American public by a neo-con [servative] cabal or a legitimate, even noble, enterprise gone awry by the hubris of those at the White House and Pentagon. From the failures of intelligence and the lack of a plan for stability and reconstruction..." "The draft report, mentioned in the first paragraph above and with a preliminary title of; Hard Lessons: The Iraq Reconstruction Experience, states that, "... the US Government was not adequately prepared to carry out the reconstruction mission it took on..." - again ignoring the fact that this was not so much a failure of government as it was a disastrous failure of free market economics." How does current power generation compare with the Saddam era? "Experts say power disruptions and brownouts also occurred under Saddam but that service is even less reliable now. "There's no question that [power outages] are worse now," says a UN development official, who would only speak on condition of anonymity. After the first Gulf War, when U.S. planes shelled Iraqi power stations and disrupted much of the country's electricity grid, Saddam's government acted relatively quickly to restore service, especially in Baghdad" What is the status of Iraq’s oil production? "Oil output, which constitutes roughly half of Iraq's gross domestic product, is still well below its prewar level of 2.5 million barrels per day (bpd), an output that was already attenuated because of UN sanctions against Saddam's regime. Despite $1.7 billion of U.S. investment, Iraq is still producing below 2 million bpd, well short of its official OPEC quota of 3.5 million bpd. Monthly oil revenues from exports remain a meager $2.9 billion (by comparison, Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil producer, had monthly revenues last year of around $13 billion). U.S. officials are eager to boost Iraq's oil revenues to support the newly formed government and help pay for a number of planned projects. Iraq holds one of the world's largest untapped reserves of oil but its existing fields are sorely outdated and underdeveloped." And on and on..... |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
In article ,
says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:57:40 -0400, NotNow wrote: John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote: Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote: So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today? Never said that. But the history that counts starts today. Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I didn't buy the car today? Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many liberals think Iraq was a bad idea. -- Maybe because he is doing what HE thinks is right, as opposed to doing what Rush thinks is right. I believe Rush thought Iraq was a good idea. I guess he and BO are thinking alike on this issue. As long as we all understand whose war it is now. -- John H Do you think it would be easier to withdraw from a war that someone started for some unknown reason, or to have not started it in the first place? Are you of the mindset that what happened in the past has no bearing on what happens now? Listen, fact is Obama ran on the promise that he had a plan to pull us out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Gitmo.. promised he would be transparent, reach across the isle... And that was just in one speech. So, really he didn't have a plan for any of these issues. And you all bought it. Remember, half the country didn't... You didn't answer my questions. Obama did, he said he had a plan, period. He didn't have a clue... -- Wafa free since 2009 |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
JustWait wrote:
In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:57:40 -0400, NotNow wrote: John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote: Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote: So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today? Never said that. But the history that counts starts today. Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I didn't buy the car today? Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many liberals think Iraq was a bad idea. -- Maybe because he is doing what HE thinks is right, as opposed to doing what Rush thinks is right. I believe Rush thought Iraq was a good idea. I guess he and BO are thinking alike on this issue. As long as we all understand whose war it is now. -- John H Do you think it would be easier to withdraw from a war that someone started for some unknown reason, or to have not started it in the first place? Are you of the mindset that what happened in the past has no bearing on what happens now? Listen, fact is Obama ran on the promise that he had a plan to pull us out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Gitmo.. promised he would be transparent, reach across the isle... And that was just in one speech. So, really he didn't have a plan for any of these issues. And you all bought it. Remember, half the country didn't... You didn't answer my questions. Obama did, he said he had a plan, period. He didn't have a clue... You didn't answer my questions. |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
In article ,
says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:57:40 -0400, NotNow wrote: John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote: Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote: So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today? Never said that. But the history that counts starts today. Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I didn't buy the car today? Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many liberals think Iraq was a bad idea. -- Maybe because he is doing what HE thinks is right, as opposed to doing what Rush thinks is right. I believe Rush thought Iraq was a good idea. I guess he and BO are thinking alike on this issue. As long as we all understand whose war it is now. -- John H Do you think it would be easier to withdraw from a war that someone started for some unknown reason, or to have not started it in the first place? Are you of the mindset that what happened in the past has no bearing on what happens now? Listen, fact is Obama ran on the promise that he had a plan to pull us out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Gitmo.. promised he would be transparent, reach across the isle... And that was just in one speech. So, really he didn't have a plan for any of these issues. And you all bought it. Remember, half the country didn't... You didn't answer my questions. Obama did, he said he had a plan, period. He didn't have a clue... You didn't answer my questions. Ok, here is your answer. I don't know. How's that. Of course I didn't get to be POTUS on the basis that I did... So now answer mine, did Obama lie, or was he clueless? -- Wafa free since 2009 |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
Gene wrote:
On Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:27:18 -0400, NotNow penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: |Gene wrote: | On Mon, 31 Aug 2009 14:46:05 -0400, NotNow wrote: | | http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...MNFT19FC7K.DTL | | If we are going to have socialized medicine, why reinvent the wheel? | Let's just put everybody under the VA administration for health care | and, from what most of you folks say, everybody should be happy.... | | Why wouldn't that work? | |I'm guessing it would be acceptable to many here if it weren't for the |fact that there's a liberal in office. I find the silence deafening! Plus, this thread has gone on for so long that I doubt any facts are now to be found..... For many years, the VA's health services have been seriously underfunded. The previous occupant of the White House went to war without consider the impact the returning wounded would have on the military's medical delivery systems for active and separated service personnel. I see no reason for a federal medical service for "civilians." What is needed is a system that properly oversights control and operation of private health insurance companies. I think the Federal Employee Health Benefit Act provides the model. A "public" insurer owned by the taxpayers could easily be added to that sort of mix. At some point you have to ask yourself exactly what the "for profit" health insurance industry does to improve health care or delivery of same, aside from a 30% profit to the corporation and its owners. |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
In article ,
says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:57:40 -0400, NotNow wrote: John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote: Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote: So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today? Never said that. But the history that counts starts today. Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I didn't buy the car today? Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many liberals think Iraq was a bad idea. -- Maybe because he is doing what HE thinks is right, as opposed to doing what Rush thinks is right. I believe Rush thought Iraq was a good idea. I guess he and BO are thinking alike on this issue. As long as we all understand whose war it is now. -- John H Do you think it would be easier to withdraw from a war that someone started for some unknown reason, or to have not started it in the first place? Are you of the mindset that what happened in the past has no bearing on what happens now? Listen, fact is Obama ran on the promise that he had a plan to pull us out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Gitmo.. promised he would be transparent, reach across the isle... And that was just in one speech. So, really he didn't have a plan for any of these issues. And you all bought it. Remember, half the country didn't... You didn't answer my questions. Obama did, he said he had a plan, period. He didn't have a clue... You didn't answer my questions. Ok, here is your answer. I don't know. How's that. Of course I didn't get to be POTUS on the basis that I did... So now answer mine, did Obama lie, or was he clueless? Neither. He made a timing mistake. He didn't realize fully how much Bush ****ed things up. So your answer is "clueless". I can accept that. Again, putting words on my mouth. Not to worry, it happens a lot when a conservative has nothing but spin. liberal = bad conservative = good. Got it. Now I've got some elderly folks to kill off..... Can you start with the pink army please? -- Wafa free since 2009 |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:56:20 -0400, NotNow wrote:
John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:57:40 -0400, NotNow wrote: John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote: Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote: So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today? Never said that. But the history that counts starts today. Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I didn't buy the car today? Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many liberals think Iraq was a bad idea. -- Maybe because he is doing what HE thinks is right, as opposed to doing what Rush thinks is right. I believe Rush thought Iraq was a good idea. I guess he and BO are thinking alike on this issue. As long as we all understand whose war it is now. -- John H Do you think it would be easier to withdraw from a war that someone started for some unknown reason, or to have not started it in the first place? Are you of the mindset that what happened in the past has no bearing on what happens now? It's BO's war. He could have been out long ago. Makes no difference who started it. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:42:42 -0400, NotNow wrote:
JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... JustWait wrote: In article , says... John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 14:57:40 -0400, NotNow wrote: John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote: Vic Smith wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:44:09 -0400, NotNow wrote: So recent history has no bearing on what's happening today? Never said that. But the history that counts starts today. Cool! Guess that means I don't have to pay my car payment because I didn't buy the car today? Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many liberals think Iraq was a bad idea. -- Maybe because he is doing what HE thinks is right, as opposed to doing what Rush thinks is right. I believe Rush thought Iraq was a good idea. I guess he and BO are thinking alike on this issue. As long as we all understand whose war it is now. -- John H Do you think it would be easier to withdraw from a war that someone started for some unknown reason, or to have not started it in the first place? Are you of the mindset that what happened in the past has no bearing on what happens now? Listen, fact is Obama ran on the promise that he had a plan to pull us out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Gitmo.. promised he would be transparent, reach across the isle... And that was just in one speech. So, really he didn't have a plan for any of these issues. And you all bought it. Remember, half the country didn't... You didn't answer my questions. Obama did, he said he had a plan, period. He didn't have a clue... You didn't answer my questions. Ok, here is your answer. I don't know. How's that. Of course I didn't get to be POTUS on the basis that I did... So now answer mine, did Obama lie, or was he clueless? Neither. He made a timing mistake. He didn't realize fully how much Bush ****ed things up. So your answer is "clueless". I can accept that. Again, putting words on my mouth. Not to worry, it happens a lot when a conservative has nothing but spin. liberal = bad conservative = good. Got it. Now I've got some elderly folks to kill off..... didn't realize=clueless Wake up, Loog. The guy has you mesmerized or ****ed off because you voted for him. I hope it's the latter, but it sounds more and more like the former. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
Those pesky facts again about healthcare
On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:02:05 -0400, NotNow wrote:
John H. wrote: On Wed, 2 Sep 2009 12:18:37 -0700 (PDT), wf3h wrote: On Sep 2, 2:32 pm, John H. wrote: On Wed, 02 Sep 2009 13:15:02 -0400, NotNow wrote: Your thinking is flawed. What has happened in the past DOES have a bearing on today. We're still spending money in Iraq, for instance. Yes, Obama is. One must wonder why he is still there if so many liberals think Iraq was a bad idea. -- because we know bush ****ed it up so bad that we now have to clean the mess up before we leave. i know that, to rednecks, they think liberals want to cut and run, but that shows how little rednecks know about anything Uh, uh, what mess? -- John H The infrastructure is in shambles, Bush promised to rebuild it. Bull****. And, you know it. That's not BO's excuse for staying there. -- John H All decisions, even those made by liberals, are the result of binary thinking. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:59 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com