Pure Gold: Obama Slams Bush for Expanding Executive Power, Ignoring Congress

Townhall, by Guy Benson

As you may recall, we tend to reserve the "pure gold" descriptor for uniquely egregious instances of Obama hypocrisy. This one surely qualifies. Behold:

“I taught constitutional law for ten years. (Liar. That was Black Liberation Theology pretending to be constitutional law.) I take the Constitution very seriously. (Constitutional law and the Constitution are 2 different things.) The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more and more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all, and that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States of America.” (Huzzahs, cheers and some fainting by useful idiots who had no clue to what he was talking about, but heard a pause so knew it was time to huzzah, cheer and faint.)

Here is a man who, as a lame duck president, is openly vowing to thwart, ignore, and bypass Congress whenever possible. Here is a man whose administration has made more than two dozen on-the-fly changes to a law duly passed by Congress, without offering even the faintest sniff of a compelling legal justification for some of the most brazen alterations.

Here is a man who asked for new lawyers when he didn't like his team's legal analysis regarding the limits of his power in unilateral foreign interventions. Here is a man who ordered an executive action for which he'd explicitly stated he didn't possess the authority 15 months earlier. This is a man who leftist law professor Jonathan Turley describes as "the president that Richard Nixon always wanted to be."

Although fully 74 percent of the public understands that Obama's actions betray the manner in which our government is supposed to function, only 60 percent disapprove of them. That gap is filled by hardcore, ends-justify-the-means, undemocratic sycophants. (Undemocratic sycophants, useful idiots, what difference does it make?) And these are the same people who spent 2001 to 2009 screeching about Bush's powers run amok. (The good news is the difference between those 14% who approve of Barack’s banana democracy and the 19% who call themselves liberals. The really horrible news is that every single Democratic congress critter is part of that 14% as exhibited by their standing ovation when he said, during the SOTU Address, that he was going to take dictatorial powers and circumvent they, the very people, who were standing up for him.)

I added the BOLD: I would have to agree with King Brown when he says "They all do It" when the statement is confined to Libtards. There's some real whoppers in the above article!!

Jim, our conservative prime minister, finance minister and justice minister are respected Canadians. Each has broken solemn promises to the party and electorate, more than 10 per cent of the party currently doesn't support the party because of its broken promises, its core is in open revolt in the House of Commons.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, as Irish as they come, is currently rethinking the Conservative income-splitting promise because, to hell with the promise, "I'd like to think I'm analytical as finance minister." It's a great deal for the comfortable but an enormous cost to Canada, cutting heavily into anticipated surplus.

Income-splitting is described by the Canadian Centre of Policy Alternatives as "Canada's tax gift to the rich." The C.D. Howe Institute says it's "a windfall" for those with one parent at home. On top of earlier broken promises involving serious fiscal and tax mismanagement, this is hurting the party big-time politically. He will put country before party.

Yes, they lied. Yes, they are conservatives in the most influential and responsible posts in public service. You and I and every adult member here know that all politicians lie. Even in your congressman's case, unanimity is so rare in anything that all voters may not ascribe to your opinion of his probity.

All politicians lie as we all do to keep peace in the family. Did you every tell little lies (of no damage to anyone) to encourage and please your wife and family, sons and daughters, grand-children and greats as I have? What about that shotgun? Claiming only libtards lie is sandbox politics.

This isn't an excuse for lying, Jim. I've heard nothing but liberal lying for as long as I've attended the board. Not a word about conservative lying. After 10 years of it, I was obliged to show that lying is endemic even among saintly conservatives who are so disrespectful with filthy language of others who don't think as they do.

Those who make a distinction that only liberals lie are bigots. Look it up. Sartre said naming things changes things. It forces us to come to grip with it.

King:
In any large group you will find exceptions. When I get on the case Liberals lying it doesn't mean that conservatives never lie. Just think back to Richard Nixon.
My point is that liberals lie to a much greater extent than conservatives and it's getting to the point that I perceive everything coming out of their mouths as lies until I see evidence to the contrary.
I honestly believe it's an ethics thing and I also perceive liberals as having far lower standards of ethicss then conservatives.
There was a huge check kiting and overdraft scandal some years ago in the House of Representatives. Dozens of Congressmen were cited for abusing their checking privileges. Of those cited one(exactly one) was a Republican. Draw your own conclusions.
Obamas lying has brought a whole new perspective of low ethics to the White House and demeaned the office along with the individual occupying it.

Thanks. On the current evidence, it's the opposite in Canada. Two senators, both reporters brought by prime minister into the non-elected Senate for their gift-of-gab fund-raising prowess, ignited most far-reach scandal in memory, looming criminal charges. The Liberal party, thrown out by its own scandal, has removed its senators from caucus, ostensibly to make the Senate more independent but likely to remove the party from investigation into similar shenanigans among its senators. I've had a front-row seat at this punk's game for more than 65 years.

I think one concept that needs to be addressed is the idea that someone can change their mind, based on new information.

Politicans often lie, when what they are saying they know to be untrue at that time. Politicians sometimes lie when having made a statement, they learn something new or events change that then forces them, in their minds, to pursue a different course.

I personally think Harper and Flaherty are wrong about income splitting. It is clearly, under our tax laws, a penalty for being married. Don't marry and you can income split all you want. But I view their recent pronouncements as an evolution of their thinking, not a lie.

Instead of lamenting the incessant lies of politicians and the media King, why don't you light one small candle by making a resolution to begin telling the truth... as an example to other lying reporters and politicians.

Maybe you should go easy at first. Your immune system might attack your tongue since it wouldn't recognize the truth as anything but an invader.

I sort of---wait for the caveat--- see it the same way as you do, James. I led my post with Harper and Company being respected in the country. We're adults. We know that changing minds from changing circumstances is a sign of intelligence. It's a raison d'être of this board: exchanging information to increase our knowledge and enjoyment of doubles.

If Flaherty brings caucus around to his way of thinking, I believe it will be seen as a plus for the party and democracy. Problem is that all politicians pander, promise beyond resources to pay for goodies to get elected, then say Jeewhiz I didn't know it was so complicated, it looks like we can't do it.

Betrayed voters say they lied. I believe they lied with the caveat that this is normal, standard statecraft; every voter has seen this movie. Our new Liberal government barely four months in office is reneging on major promises and, as the federal Conservatives, there's no Tea Party to say boo.

It's what politicians do.

Promising without knowing you can deliver is deceptive, a trick, a sham. Depending on circumstances, it's criminal, a fraud. If I break a promise to you, I have lied unless there are extenuating circumstances and I make good my promise. We cut politicians slack because we know what they do.

What's most interesting to me is dissatisfaction with the Conservative new "evolution of thinking" is emanating from the western Canada core that put the party in power. Perhaps Jim Flaherty, in failing health and not likely to re-offer, wants to make amends and set the stage for a new party leader.

If Flaherty puts the country before party---and I think he will hammer it into the head of the prime minister---I'd be the last one to call him a liar. If he doesn't, it would still be be boorish to go around calling him a liar.

Further to my earlier comment about lying vs evolving thinking, here's an excerpt from today's column from one of our more articulate and common sense filled political analysts:

Rex Murphy, National Post Feb 15, 2014

"Now it is quite a leap, I agree, from the articulacy of a Francis Bacon to the stammering half-sentences, the periodic mauling of verbs, nouns and their attendant modifiers whenever George H.W. Bush (even more than when that malaprop, his son, G.W.) began the painful long and hopeless entanglement with an English sentence. Herbert Walker Bush did have one moment of unattenuated clarity, however; a bare utterance of six words which fell from his Elmer Fudd lips with a force and sound (for once) of real determination and the accents of a real pledge. You remember it: “Read My Lips. No New Taxes.”

He recited this mantra word by word, pausing between each of them, as if the force with which he spoke them was a warrant for the deep promise he was making. This pledge was fundamental. This was not the ordinary campaign muttering about the future, lazily general.

And when the time came to break it … this clarion call of a promise, this promise clear even to lip-readers … he broke it … and thereby broke his presidency. What I call here fundamental promises, promises seen by electors as fundamental to their vote, cannot be broken without great injury to a number of parties. And so George Bush’s “Read My Lips: No New Taxes” is now, I think even more than the rescue of Kuwait, the signature moment of his dminished presidency.

It’s only parallel is one made by Barack Obama. The Obama pledge surpasses even Bush’s in the urgency with which it was made, and for the clarity of its utterance. It was — as you may see on a hundred clips from a hundred speeches — no one-off, flip, off-the-cuff moment of empty puffery. Over and over he promised: If you like your health-care plan, you can keep you health care plan. Period.
Related


Americans by the millions, and even a national press long besotted with their “historical” president, now know that was not true. This broken promise has wrecked Obama’s poll numbers, and eaten nearly fatally into the trust (ever fewer) Americans have for him.

It was central to Obamacare as presented to a voting America. And it was from the lips not of some campaign manager, some background “spokesperson.” It was coming from the lips of — as he presents himself — an idealist President, one who claimed to be, in his very person, a departure from the old politics of equivocation and promise-breaking.

Nor was this a pledge like his promising that this was the time to halt the rising of the oceans and begin the healing of the planet in which he, in one of his more astral moods, went full Oprah. Pledges dealing with the cosmos are always a piece of vanity on the speaker’s party, and embarrassing to every adult listener. This was specific: This new plan will not interfere with your old plan. So you may safely vote for me, and it. I permit myself no escape hatch. Period.

The question all this brings to me is a plain one: When does a fundamental lie invalidate an election. What kind of duplicity, and of what scale, is required before Americans can say of their President, the executor of their laws, symbol of trust, “You have broken faith — and it appears you have done so knowingly.”

I’d argue that a knowing falsehood, one that is intended to get people to approve what they would dismiss if they knew the real truth, a lie coming repeatedly from the mouth of a President who has sold himself as something of a “truth-teller,” poses a political question of the deepest kind.

To be elected on what turns out to be a core falsity is to put that election in the shadow

So now that all America knows this, knowing now their health plans are gone, their doctors unavailable, their usual hospitals theirs no more, it goes to the heart of Obama’s legitimacy as President. To be elected on what turns out to be a core falsity is to put that election in the shadow.

The difference of his lie from Bush’s is this: At the time Bush was speaking he probably meant what he said. Later events, in his judgement, forced him to depart from what, at one time, he really intended to do. Obama’s promise was never true, not in its intention, not in its utterance.

But more than any other statements, this promise won Obama the election and enabled passage of Obamacare. Can a policy enabled by a lie be legitimate? Or was Obama’s deception so gross and commanding that it it vitiates his Obamacare policy, and perhaps even his claim to his office?

What is truth? That depends on whether it’s coming out of the mouth of politician and a president. No wonder Pilate walked away. He was a politician and could not bear to hear the answer."

Bravo! No matter what Rex says it's always appreciated if only at times for his inimitable style. He makes the point we're discussing. Note he says Bush's broken promise parallels Obama's---side by side---with Obama's surpassing in urgency and clarity. Bush is more forgiveable because he hadn't a clue to make that kind of promise. It's impossible for me to believe Obama was so dumb to not know what he was doing.

Members should know that unbelievably erudite and gentlemanly Rex Murphy, courteous to a fault, couldn't get hired for American television. He looks like a skinny alcoholic hick with hair awry and baleful eyes who had just fallen off a hay wagon. Brains to burn and courage to go. He writes for the right-of-centre National Post and is a regular contributor to the CBC public news commentaries, including a couple hours Sunday afternoons. We were separated by a couple offices in CBC Halifax.

He is truly a national treasure.

King, the fundamental difference was that Bush believed his statement. Obama, cynically, did not. That's the point Rex is making.

Yep, that's what Rex said and I agreed with you and him---with the caveat. That's not to be an apologist for Bush. Bush was stupid to say what he did, even if he believed it, and consequently more forgivable. Obama knew the ACA file to introduce it, and he lied. True believers shouldn't be excused, however, from lying while seeking an advantage over others for greater influence or highest office in the land. Bush and Obama won with stained legacies. Publics rarely differentiate by degrees.

How do we know bo won with any type of legacy at all. He wasn't vetted, remember? The lone reporter, from Fox traveling with the hope-n-change campaign, was booted off for asking a few less than awe struck questions.

There may have been a few degrees of differentiation, you've mentioned the tingle up ones leg a bunch of times. Old white guy vs. lib black guy, perhaps the early days of the equality struggle. Oh no hang on a moment, you fondly remember that back fifty years ago, this is the post racial era.

The heavy lady hasn't sung on the legacy, Craig. There's no turning back universal healthcare. Shabbily introduced, it's bringing US to standard of the developed world. Foreign affairs choppy, too, but overall improved, no longer world pariah, and immeasurably better than Canada's, once admired for conciliatory diplomacy, now strictly "C'mon down, let's make a deal." As yours, politicians replaced professionals. I know you're joshing about post-racial. It's picking up speed, negatively.

Wanna Bet King ????

Obamacare,the ACA is falling apart under its own weight,and its a LOT more then shabbily introduced.After the midterms and ANOTHER shellacking,you will learn what the power of the purse and congress can do to a lame duck president. The "heavy lady has not sung " on obamacare either,and the MAJORITY does NOT want it.

The American health care was the ENVY of the developed world before obamcare.

more lies from you,to use your quote "just because you say it does not make it true" !!!!!

even your fellow liberals are admitting its falling apart !

"Democrat Jim Moran, a top House Democrat and a key ally of Nancy Pelosi and President Obama, admitted this weekend that their signature health care law may be on the verge of falling apart.

"Through the end of January, 3.3 million Americans signed up for government-approved insurance plans, and about 82 percent of them did it to get on the dole. Even under the most optimistic scenarios, that can’t work.

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/feb/13/editorial-sweetheart-get-me-rewrite/#ixzz2tUwBArUm
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

Poll; Majority feels obamacare would NOT have passed today knowing about lies used to pass it they know now..



" Overall, 64 percent of voters don’t think the law would have passed if we knew back in 2009 what we know today"

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlic...ow-now-n1794775

Over half of American voters regret that the Affordable Care Act passed, and nearly two-thirds say it never would have -- if we knew then what we know now.

Fifty-five percent of voters wish the health care law had never passed. That includes majorities of young people under age 30 (55 percent) and those with annual household incomes under $50,000 (52 percent), as well as more than a quarter of Democrats (28 percent).

Some 37 percent are glad the law passed.

The poll also finds that by a 51-42 percent margin, people think in the long run the law will be bad for the country.

Overall, 64 percent of voters don’t think the law would have passed if we knew back in 2009 what we know today.

On ocare, always interesting, equivocating the roll out with some one world view. Always the implication that the impatient naysayers will fade away, embarrassed after the bumpy start is ironed out. For some reason it seems best not to 'discuss' the facts about ocare.

It's been tossed around a bunch here, but what's a world standard and how do we know if the folks who're being punitively taxed even want that standard. Could there be a valid point of view that the majority of Americans do not want to be lowered to a world standard, but encourage the unique exceptionalism of US health care.

Is there any list of world coalition building with positive results. No, I'll pass on the french mideast retreat policy. It's just an ideology, not a united front. Maybe there're international agreements to hold lavish social events under the excuse of climate change. Who again might actually be listening and swayed by what the US has to say.

I'm appreciative that you acknowledge the negative direction of the US racial climate. Might be a good thing if it were a punch line, but I think you recognize it as more than a dismissible 'punks' game. We do have a good idea who the punk is. Thank goodness for the teleprompter tech, keeping it firing on all cylinders lets us know that the message is intentional.

Okay, Dave, just between neighbours across the Gulf of Maine: What's the bet? I gave up gambling as a young father of 20 who lost $8 betting I'd win and never gambled again. I don't consider "gambling" as wagering on a sure thing!

I believe there will be "no turning back from universal healthcare" and I'd almost go further to say Republicans will introduce reforms to improve it. I believe American health care is not "the ENVY of the developed world."

"Just because you say it is (the envy) doesn't make it true," Dave.The US is practically the only developed country that doesn't have universal health care. Why would anyone choose it, for Pete's sake, when it's most expensive in the world with poor public outcomes?

So that leaves (a) determining when or what year I or you collect a modest wager and (b) the wager. By the low standards posited here about lying, neither of us has lied because we believed what we wrote as our opinions. It's only a respectful disagreement between a conservative and a liberal!

Your call.

No one questions the "unique exceptionalism" of US health care. It is unusual, to say the least. The thought passes my mind from time to time that Obama risked everything however deviously to make a positive difference in the same way FDR edged the US into the Second World War and Churchill may have allowed a German sub to sink a liner in the Irish Sea to torpedo the US into the First. History is filled with examples of positive outcomes of similar ends-means.

The racial growth is endemic everywhere, Craig. It's all about "us" as communities and clans, and it trivializes the current horrible consequences across the world to place it under the dreary, self-defeating politics of the punk's game. I believe that US and Russia, with delicacy, patience and persistence, may ease Middle East tensions. The US is still the most powerful and influential nation on earth, Craig. We're blessed. Don't give up on your country. I haven't, under either a conservative or liberal.

wow, once again you have several lies,

America "was" the envy of the world and were people from ALL over the world,and yes even Canada came to get the best health care.As I have stated before I have several friends and neighbors who work in Dartmouth Hitchcock who see many many patients from Canada and Europe.

We don't want the death panels,the loss doctors and long waits you and others stuck with socialized medicine have King.

Once again you ignore the Republic plan,its been put up here several time yet you continue to ignore it.

First it repeals ( assuming obamacare has not self destructed on its own ) obamacare

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/369597/healthier-and-wiser-editors

you come up with a number King, we will do that bet and maybe one that says Obama will not complete his term stepping down in impeachment.

Knowing the fore thought that could be loaded into a prompter, why can't the bully pulpit signal unity rather than the never ending campaign to rally a base that feeds on prejudice.

May very well be about the US' influence and power, I never thought I'd 'give up'. I was wondering what needed repairing with foreign relations, and how do we know it worked. Has bo created any multinational coalitions that have advanced any of his ideological objectives. Does he command the same popular audiences since the novelty of the first year or two has worn out.

Hey Dave K., I'd take Kings bet, and make the wager a big one... because even under the most rosy scenario, over 30 million will still be uninsured after the full implementation of ObamaCare.

Leaving 10% of the population out of the mix, hardly qualifies as Universal Anything.

But even when the terms of the wager show you've won, I wouldn't ever expect King to pay up.

Instead, he'll come back here crowing about how he was right and you were wrong... just like he did about the massive assault on our gun rights after Newtown. I'd just like someone to show me even once where King has ever been man enough to admit that he was wrong about anything.

I will Keith,

its amazing how he wants to ram socialized medicine down Americans throats when the MAJORITY don't want it !Obamacare is a massive failure and falling apart. After all the waivers and delays (the largest will put off the employer mandate until "after obama term is over") its just about repealed,all thats needed now is congress-after the 2014 midterms to cut the funds and its done !

Not at all amazing Dave, that an avowed Socialist wishes to promote Socialism in the U.S. Burger King spends an inordinate amount of time here trying to lead the U.S down the wrong path, while he has done nothing constructive in his own country of Canada. He pretends to be an interested observer when it's obvious that he is a cheerleader and promoter with a Socialist agenda.

Some have suggested that if I met King face to face, I'd be able to enjoy a beer and a discussion with him. Wrong! I don't drink with anyone I don't trust.

This law was passed over 4 years ago, and Obama just keeps pushing back full implementation. If it was so good, you'd think he would be pushing for full implementation ASAP. But it's obvious that the strategy is to just get as many Democrats who supported it as possible re-elected. We already see how many Democrats who are up for re-election are running away from it. They even refuse to be seen with Obama when he travels to their States. That's not a sign that it is something good and something that the American people want. I still think that perhaps it was a plan to fail, and that the real goal is total Gov't control after it fails, and after they reward their cronies with massive bailouts. You can bet that when it does fail, the filthy lying Libtards will place as much blame on Republicans as they can. They have already used the spin that Republicans had no alternate plan, and the lying Liberal media refuses to expose that as a lie.

As good as our health care system was, there certainly were problems. I just wish they could have first asked the tough question: why is the cost of health care accelerating at 3 times the rate of inflation for the past 3 decades? That has still not been addressed. That's a topic for another thread, but let's start with working people getting gouged to help pay for health care for able bodied Welfare bums and up to 20 million illegal aliens.

Obama got in on the unity trope---hope as a public expectation of something better---and in again for reasons beaten about here: split opposition with weak candidate, cheating or to give him a chance to do what he was elected to do. All water on the bridge now.

Repairing foreign relations isn't as easy as the electorate choosing. The Bush doctrine was to do what America pleases, to invade arbitrarily any country and change the social, economic, military institutions considered inimical to US national interests. You know consequences of that one. Obama changed tack.

Obama said from the start America needed friends to reach its objectives; it can't go it alone. The multinational air war against Libya was led by purposely by a Canadian, and US is working with Russia, China and even Iran to bring regional balance to the Middle East.

As to your last question of Obama's popularity: No, his popularity is nowhere near early days. His predecessors suffered similar falls from grace.

Here is an article detailing the problems with socialized medicine in Great Britain . The article was published well before Obamacare so it's not an attack on this fiasco.
Link Below:

I think the last sentence of the article is particularly telling.

"The lesson of U.K. health reform is to move away from socialized medicine. Our challenge is to provide guaranteed coverage and competition (on the continental European model) together with guaranteed individual rights for patients (as on the Continent and the U.S.). The U.K. experience has profound lessons for reform-minded politicians in America and indeed in other developed countries - particularly on what not to do. "

BOLD added by yours truly!



Jim

http://news.investors.com/111307-487226-...t=international health organization&p=2

Still your call, Dave. You asked to bet. I'll even go along with your "maybe" raising the ante by betting Obama won't complete his term because of impeachment. We'll have the winner of that second one by the end of his term. The winner of the first one--- on universal healthcare system not being turned back ---will be determined by Obama's successor. What's your bet?

Water on the bridge??? Aren't you a bit old to be using LSD King?

Obama took the Bush Doctrine and wasted whatever gains resulted from it just to please his anti-war supporters. As a result, Iraq has fallen into chaos and the Iranians are gaining a huge foothold there. Karzai in Afghanistan is releasing Taliban prisoners and terrorists are regrouping. Did you happen to read about the 21 terrorists who got killed when the car bomb they were learning to set exploded prematurely? China is still working toward a 1000 ship navy and flexing its' muscles in the South China sea... Putin is laughing at Obama over his failures in Syria and Libya (remember those dead Americans in Benghazi?), and Iran is still enriching Uranium on it's way toward the first Radical Muslim atomic bomb.

I guess your idea of balance in the Middle East is a mushroom cloud over Tel Aviv.

How much will your heating oil cost when they nuke the Strait of Hormuz? And will you take in your poor friends who must already choose between keeping warm and starving? I always thought age brings a certain wisdom. Not in your case.

Are you really that stupid? Oh, I can just imagine how critical you'd be of Bush if he had unilaterally gone into Pakistan to get bin Ladin. And killing people in countries where we are not at war, even targeting American citizens without a trial, by the use of Drone strikes. Why, you'd be apoplectic, but anything Obama does is just dandy as long as he keeps the Socialism Express bus running down the road. Water on the bridge??? WTF does that mean wordsmith?

Canada and Europe are evolving that way---public/private---getting away from ideological notion it must be purely public. Canadians already are actively engaged in non-profit Blue Cross etc for the extras. Canada is looking closely at the French health system. I believe reform-minded Americans will do similarly, including making it universal as all those other countries do. Insurance industry creaming it while millions are left out isn't a healthcare system.

I'd like to see R's swagger just a bit as if the senate midterms are in the bag and drop hints that insurance carrier shortfalls for lack of participation may not be part of future budgets. Maybe, pull the fairness and equality card and hint that insurance co's won't be able to disperse ocare loses through out their private sector accounts.

Big insurance has been largely quiet, likely due to significant financial incentive. There are chinks in the armor though that could easily become greater. Those folks likely have the ability to assert internal pressure on the admin and influence the message that gets out to joe average, if they believe their bottom line is in question. Good example would be key delays that bo would not be able to cover by exec order after he's done with term two.

Isn't that what ObamaCare was supposed to address... the over forty million Americans without Health Care coverage??? And what is it accomplishing besides getting several million more on Medicaid taxpayer funded coverage while still leaving over 30 million out in the cold??? And at the same time, the website is soliciting illegal aliens and promising that they can get coverage while being immune from the INS getting information on their illegal status.

Only a true LIBTARD could look at this and call it a success.

I still can't get over King celebrating the Obama Administration basically turning a blind eye to the Iranian pursuit of nukes. I'd make this wager: I'd bet King would be losing what little is left of his mind if Israel was full of black people or Miq'mak Indians, and the Mullahs were threatening its' total anhialation.

King Brown :" I believe reform-minded Americans will do similarly, including making it universal as all those other countries do."


aahh you can "believe" all you want but the facts,once again, show otherwise !


Majority feels obamacare would NOT have passed today knowing about lies used to pass it they know now..



"Overall, 64 percent of voters don’t think the law would have passed if we knew back in 2009 what we know today"

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlic...ow-now-n1794775

Over half of American voters regret that the Affordable Care Act passed, and nearly two-thirds say it never would have -- if we knew then what we know now.

Fifty-five percent of voters wish the health care law had never passed. That includes majorities of young people under age 30 (55 percent) and those with annual household incomes under $50,000 (52 percent), as well as more than a quarter of Democrats (28 percent).

Some 37 percent are glad the law passed.

The poll also finds that by a 51-42 percent margin, people think in the long run the law will be bad for the country.

Overall, 64 percent of voters don’t think the law would have passed if we knew back in 2009 what we know today.

Gee, Dave, with all that how can you lose? What's the bet?

What the voters think about this law means absolutely nothing in the real world. Their opinions meant nothing when the law was passed and they mean nothing now. ACA was passed by the voters' elected representatives, and those clowns were all drinking the Obama Kool-Aid. Even if the voters had been up in arms at the time ACA was passed, their reps would have passed it anyway. The only solution is to replace the elected reps, and you can't do that retroactively.

Now the "low (and no)information" voters are seeing the damage first hand in layoffs,cut hours,loss of doctors and plans.That is the very big difference.

Those congressman that voted and stood by obamacare and all the lies are running scared now,they know its going to cost them the Senate.

I thought your post would elicit a greater response, Replacement. A prime example of abuse of voters are Canadian conservatives, like the Tea Party, left in the lurch by their party. The party's core is in western Canada, as is its leader the prime minister, and it rode to power pledging faith to social conservatives.

After eight years they've got only lip service from their leader: nothing on abortion, still waiting in vain for return of the noose, still legal for same-sex couples to marry, obscene financial scandals in place of promised probity and the government lost on a landmark case on prostitution.

Replacing elected representatives doesn't appear to be a solution for social conservatives here and there who've been betrayed by ginks who said one thing and did the other.

Maybe if one digs deeper, there was civil discussion and conservatives were convinced by libs to retain righteous entitlements. Ya, right.

I think the value of your example has significantly to do with times when folks whine about a US do nothing congress. First, if you can't do something constructive, then do no harm. Second, there does not seem to be the will to legislate by executive action.

Consider yourselves lucky.

I was also expecting more, but it's hard to argue with unassailable truth. Usually.

It's 11:20 pm Monday night and I've had guests and a few glasses. So I need to get to bed and yet my hand smacks my forehead as I read this. I will need a little more time but I will respond to this mis-characterization. King, there is a kernel of truth is what you say but the devil's in the details and you've picked all the wrong details here, purposely I suppose, to give more weight to your thesis. See you later.

James,

King is much too busy counting how many bubbles are in a bar of soap to be interested in your correction of his dishonesty, oops, I mean intentional mis-characterization.

http://gh.linkedin.com/pub/kingsley-brown/47/b33/379

Don't worry the next one will be different.

Oops, sorry........ I meant the same.

Typical condescending prick response,you must get that attitude from being ruled by Dems for so long. !

The Dems up for reelection are running scared and its from reading those SAME polls that do indeed matter.

The only thing that may scare independently thinking person is what ammo hoarders are going to do with all the ammo they continue on buying. I'm not "in loop" on that one.

I did enjoy the video on republican contributions to civil rights cause. Given that after 1970s Americans still drive vehicles that get 8 miles to a gallon and large amount of oil comes from Middle East tells me that this message will fall on death ears.

I think you mean "deaf". The very good news is we are producing much more oil than we import today, and if the climate change hoaxsters get out of the way, or, are forced out after the next election, we can produce more.

Hey, PJ, I lived through Carter, and my Dad lived through FDR. We get the same results every time liberal dems occupy the white house. I wish people would figure that out.


Best,
Ted

Right back at ya!

United States should have left Middle East region in the 70s and let country(s) stupid enough step in to deal with these people for next 50+ years. We would not be in mess we are in now if that happened.

PJ, the middle east has been a mess for more like 2500 years. Had we not been there, it is quite likely the father of the Islamic bomb (he is a Pakastani, look it up) would have seen to a further proliferation in the region, selling to any who would pay.

Iran and Iraq would have been more than happy to pony up. If you believe the benovelent Jihadists would not hate America if we hadn't been involved in the middle east, you are dead wrong-they hate our way of life and consider us their enemy regardless, and would have happily put a crew of martyrs on a leaky freighter and sailed it into NY harbor with a plutonium bomb in it's hold.

Sorry, PJ, but much of what you type is simple minded rehashing of the same failed liberal talking points that have little relevance to reality. I am going to repeat what started this, I lived through Carter, my father lived through FDR, and the only thing that turns the country around is getting the leftist liberal out of office and out of the way so the country can begin to work again.
It is a proven historical point.

You also seem to have missed the point that the US is a net exporter of oil today, and seem to be shrieking the same, tired, old, sky is falling conservation at whatever cost to the economy chant, that was popular in the 1970s, but, got us no-where.

I don't know of any cars that get 8 miles to the gallon, either.


Best,
Ted