BREAKING: Mitt Romney Urged Obama to Embrace the Individual Mandate

[dblack]

Romney changed his mind and that is good enough for me. BTW, when was GITMO closed per Obama's promise?

heh... good one. If Romney wins, weenies will be sitting around three years from now wondering why PPACA wasn't repealed as promised.

SUCKERS!!!!

 

[Too Tall]

So if this was in the newspaper, why are we hearing about it now?

Great question.

To understand it, you must understand what LBJ meant when he said:

"If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America."

Lyndon Johnson, lamenting Cronkite's turn against Vietnam, learned a lesson that Nixon learned even more tragically.

A free press is a bitch.

Starting in the 70s, the Republicans decided to fight back against the free press (-Nixon called them the "liberal Jew-run media"). They spent 30 years investing trillions in think tanks, talk radio, television, publishing groups, PACs, and the blogosphere. They created groups like the College Republicans, whereas the radical Left disbanded and dropped-out of politics after Vietnam.

The Liberals are gone. There is no Labor Party in America. Clinton left them at the alter for NAFTA and big business. Obama's financial team are all Free Market Wall Streeters.

Large mega-corporations now own mass media -and those corporations want lower taxes, i.e., they hate the Left, despite what you've been told by your rightwing media.

So you ask: "why didn't I hear that Romney visited the White House and advised Obama to enact the individual mandate? And why didn't I know that Obama's Health Care plan, which centers around the individual mandate, originated on the Right and has been in circulation since Nixon. And why didn't I know that Bob Dole countered Hillary's plan of medicare for all with the individual mandate, so he could feed citizens into the private system rather than having the government compete with the private sector?"

I'll tell you why you didn't know son.

Because your carefully constructed, hermetically sealed information universe calls everything outside the bubble "the lame stream media".

Don't you get it? You live completely inside Republican Media sources. You wouldn't have learned about Romney advising Obama any more than you would have learned that Reagan saved Social Security or passed the largest Amnesty Bill in this country's history.

Your news sources don't cover real history, so let's start now.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0-91W5LS0E8]Ronald Reagan on Social Security - Part 1 - YouTube[/ame]

Have your news sources talked about Bush's partnership with Fannie/Freddie in his drive to put poor people in homes?
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kNqQx7sjoS8]Home Ownership and President Bush - YouTube[/ame]

(God help us. FOX News now owns reality)

Have your news sources talked about Bush's partnership with Fannie/Freddie in his drive to put poor people in homes?

Have your news sources talked about Bush's attempts to regulate Fannie and Freddie.

A September 11, 2003 New York Times article shows that President Bush proposed “the most significant regulatory overhaul in the housing finance industry since the savings and loan crisis a decade ago.” His proposal: An agency within the Treasury Department to supervise mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Fearing that mortgages would no longer be available to people who were unable to pay them back, Democrats eventually killed the proposal. The current meltdown in the mortgage industry is a direct result of giving mortgages to people who could not pay them back, a practice protected by Congressional Democrats.

Both entities were recently taken over by the government, a move that puts trillions of taxpayer dollars at risk.

The proposal worked its way around Congress for a couple of years. Efforts at reform of the kind proposed by President Bush were shot down by Democrats each time.

According to OpenSecrets.org, between 1988 and 2008 Dodd received $133,900, Kerry $111,000, Clinton $75,550, and Obama — in only 143 days in the Senate — received a whopping $105,849 from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Pennsylvania Democrat representative Paul Kanjorksi, who also opposed new Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac regulations, was given more than any other member of the House of Representatives. He was paid $65,500 by representatives of these entities.

And, in case you were wondering, John McCain co-sponsored a bill requiring greater Fannie Mae / Freddie Mac regulation in 2005. It was also blocked procedurally by Democrats.

 

[JoeB131]

Corporations such as the insurance companies do not have the power to take your freedoms. It is the government you have so blindly capitulated to that has that power.

No, I've just agreed that there are services that I can't provide for myself that the government can. I just don't get all paranoid about it like you are...

Why on earth should I give a shit if the insurance corporation makes an ungodly profit? Which when looking at their profit margins is actually debatable. At least with a corporation, if I don't like the "service" they provide, I can choose not to buy or go to their competition. That is not possible when we speak about the government, nor is it possible in the case of the insurance companies under the ACA thanks to Obama and his Socialistic agenda.

You work on the assumption that we really have any choice. 150 million of us get insurance through our employers. Which is really the problem. After the shareholders and the paying customers, actually taking care of the policy holders is the third concern.

Now, the fact is, as I've said, we could simply have all out employers just pay us what they pay us and then have us negotiate for insurance on our own. The system would collapse in 5 years and then we'd be back talking about public options.

By the way, I saw your idiotic post earlier about just allowing society to pay for unpaid medical services either via increased billing by the hospitals or other means is already socialism. With that I would agree. On the other hand, only an idiot would think that we are a pure democracy or even a totally free market society. Only an idiot would want to live under a totally free market. There are already hundreds if not thousands of socialistic government programs. Personally, I thought the balance of about thirty years ago, was pretty good. Since then, we have allowed the elitist in Washington of both parties to chip away at those freedoms. No one, Democrats or Republicans seem to want to stop them. You're... We're... handing them our frigging freedoms on a silver platter!

I should point out that if you want to whine about the last 30 years, Republicans were in charge of things for about 20 of those. Just sayin'. What you don't seem to be able to process is WHY people are happy for the government to do more now. It's because for the last 30 years, those same big corporations whose freedoms you are sooooooo worried about have chipped away at wages, benefits, pensions, etc., leaving people with no resort but going to the government.

In short, you morons have done this to yourselves. The politicians are just meeting a demand.

The problem is that socialists such as the Democrats that held power two years ago want to move us much further along the continuum towards socialism. So far so that one would no longer be able to consider America as a free market society at all.

Again, guy, if there were a "free market" solution that was halfway humane, some clever person would have gotten there already. The reason we have this mutant hybrid of government and business is because 1) The Free Market can't provide a solution that doesn't involve massive government support and subsidy and 2) too many businesses are making too much money off the status quo to actually go to a public service system like Canada or the UK have.

You may desire to be a slave to elitists in Washington, but that very thought turns my stomach. I believe very much in the document that you along with the politicians in Washington are so diligently attempting to shred.

Immie

Yawn... the whole, "The Founding Fathers didn't like socialism and neither do I" argument. Tiresome.

I should point out that the Founding Slave Owners thought that bleeding a person was a valid medical treatment (in fact, that is how they killed poor George Washington), so I don't think I will put much stock in how to resolve a national health care system.

 

[Immanuel]

Corporations such as the insurance companies do not have the power to take your freedoms. It is the government you have so blindly capitulated to that has that power.

No, I've just agreed that there are services that I can't provide for myself that the government can. I just don't get all paranoid about it like you are...

Why on earth should I give a shit if the insurance corporation makes an ungodly profit? Which when looking at their profit margins is actually debatable. At least with a corporation, if I don't like the "service" they provide, I can choose not to buy or go to their competition. That is not possible when we speak about the government, nor is it possible in the case of the insurance companies under the ACA thanks to Obama and his Socialistic agenda.

You work on the assumption that we really have any choice. 150 million of us get insurance through our employers. Which is really the problem. After the shareholders and the paying customers, actually taking care of the policy holders is the third concern.

Now, the fact is, as I've said, we could simply have all out employers just pay us what they pay us and then have us negotiate for insurance on our own. The system would collapse in 5 years and then we'd be back talking about public options.



I should point out that if you want to whine about the last 30 years, Republicans were in charge of things for about 20 of those. Just sayin'. What you don't seem to be able to process is WHY people are happy for the government to do more now. It's because for the last 30 years, those same big corporations whose freedoms you are sooooooo worried about have chipped away at wages, benefits, pensions, etc., leaving people with no resort but going to the government.

In short, you morons have done this to yourselves. The politicians are just meeting a demand.

The problem is that socialists such as the Democrats that held power two years ago want to move us much further along the continuum towards socialism. So far so that one would no longer be able to consider America as a free market society at all.

Again, guy, if there were a "free market" solution that was halfway humane, some clever person would have gotten there already. The reason we have this mutant hybrid of government and business is because 1) The Free Market can't provide a solution that doesn't involve massive government support and subsidy and 2) too many businesses are making too much money off the status quo to actually go to a public service system like Canada or the UK have.

You may desire to be a slave to elitists in Washington, but that very thought turns my stomach. I believe very much in the document that you along with the politicians in Washington are so diligently attempting to shred.

Immie

Yawn... the whole, "The Founding Fathers didn't like socialism and neither do I" argument. Tiresome.

I should point out that the Founding Slave Owners thought that bleeding a person was a valid medical treatment (in fact, that is how they killed poor George Washington), so I don't think I will put much stock in how to resolve a national health care system.

About the only thing that even deserves an answer there is the part about the Republicans running things for 20 of the last 30 years. The Republicans are no different than the Democrats in regards to wanting to eliminate our rights. The one difference is the angle they come at us from.

The Republicans are as corrupt as the Democrats and people like you just want to hand them the whole kit and kaboodle and have us live as obedient little mice without so much as a voice in our own decisions.

People like you want to let the government feed, clothe and shelter us and even tell us when we can wipe our own asses and how many square(s) we are allowed to use.

Immie

 

[JoeB131]

About the only thing that even deserves an answer there is the part about the Republicans running things for 20 of the last 30 years. The Republicans are no different than the Democrats in regards to wanting to eliminate our rights. The one difference is the angle they come at us from.

The Republicans are as corrupt as the Democrats and people like you just want to hand them the whole kit and kaboodle and have us live as obedient little mice without so much as a voice in our own decisions.

People like you want to let the government feed, clothe and shelter us and even tell us when we can wipe our own asses and how many square(s) we are allowed to use.

Immie

Yawn.... Why do I get the feeling your one of these retards who gets up with a sign saying "Keep you Gummit Hands of my Medicare!"

So are you honestly going to try to claim you never, ever use a government service and never will? Because honestly, if you do, you are kind of a hypocrite.

The politicians aren't taking away our freedoms, they are meeting our demands. If we are demanding more, it's because the free enterprise system (i.e. big corporations) are providing less.

And in many ways, the fiscal problems are part of the success. When Social Security and Medicare were introduced, the average lifespan was about 65. So not a lot of folks lived long enough to cash in. Now the lifespan is 78.. and a lot of folks are.

The logical solution. Let people work longer, but the big corporations you love don't want to hire old folks. At least not paying them anything decent, anyway. So those old folks perfer actually living rather than the "freedom" of starving. How dare they?

 

[grunt11b]

States can mandate, the Federal government cannot in this case. That's all there is to it. Nothing more to be said on the subject.

 

[JoeB131]

States can mandate, the Federal government cannot in this case. That's all there is to it. Nothing more to be said on the subject.

No, not really.

Romney had no problem with a federal mandate until the Teabaggers started having a problem with it. He actually touted it as a model for the nation.

Now he wouldn't be caught having a non-exciting drink with it.

 

[Immanuel]

About the only thing that even deserves an answer there is the part about the Republicans running things for 20 of the last 30 years. The Republicans are no different than the Democrats in regards to wanting to eliminate our rights. The one difference is the angle they come at us from.

The Republicans are as corrupt as the Democrats and people like you just want to hand them the whole kit and kaboodle and have us live as obedient little mice without so much as a voice in our own decisions.

People like you want to let the government feed, clothe and shelter us and even tell us when we can wipe our own asses and how many square(s) we are allowed to use.

Immie

Yawn.... Why do I get the feeling your one of these retards who gets up with a sign saying "Keep you Gummit Hands of my Medicare!"

So are you honestly going to try to claim you never, ever use a government service and never will? Because honestly, if you do, you are kind of a hypocrite.

The politicians aren't taking away our freedoms, they are meeting our demands. If we are demanding more, it's because the free enterprise system (i.e. big corporations) are providing less.

And in many ways, the fiscal problems are part of the success. When Social Security and Medicare were introduced, the average lifespan was about 65. So not a lot of folks lived long enough to cash in. Now the lifespan is 78.. and a lot of folks are.

The logical solution. Let people work longer, but the big corporations you love don't want to hire old folks. At least not paying them anything decent, anyway. So those old folks perfer actually living rather than the "freedom" of starving. How dare they?

My God you are the dumbest idiot on the site next to TDM and rdean. Even Mr. Shaman and Chris have more intelligence than you.

First, I never said anything at all about not using government services nor did I say I have a problem with any of the current services except for the frigging mandate that we all buy health insurance. Get your head out of Obama's ass please. It is the assholes you elect that are the problem not the services.

The politicians are a bunch of elite assholes who think we owe them the shirts off our frigging backs moron. Well, obviously, you gave them yours a hell of a long time ago.

Like I said earlier, we are on a continuum somewhere between pure democracy and pure socialism. Assholes like you want to make us a pure socialistic country. Either one of the two would be a disaster. Unfortunately, that is exactly what you and Obama are striving for... pure socialism. God help us if you win.

Immie

 

[Misty]

"Dumbass, most of the rest of the industrialized world has universal health care, lower costs, they live longer and have lower infant mortality rates.". Quote from JoeB131

"Shirley Healy, like many sick Canadians, came to America for surgery. Her doctor in British Columbia told her she had only a few weeks to live because a blocked artery kept her from digesting food. Yet Canadian officials called her surgery "elective."

"The only thing elective about this surgery was I elected to live," she said."

"[America] is the country of medical innovation. This is where people come when they need treatment," Dr. Gratzer says.

"Literally we're surrounded by medical miracles. Death by cardiovascular disease has dropped by two-thirds in the last 50 years. You've got to pay a price for that type of advancement."*

Canada and England don't pay the price because they freeload off American innovation. If America adopted their systems, we could worry less about paying for health care, but we'd get 2009-level care—forever. Government monopolies don't innovate. Profit seekers do."

The Shotgun: John Stossel on Canadian health care and free lunches.

"One of the excellent aspects of the current American health care system is that most people can get immediate help if they become very ill. Not true in places like Canada or the UK, where waiting lines for crucial imaging tests can range in the several months–months that for cancer patients can mean the difference between living and dying."

"American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women. *[See Figure I.]*
American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men."

Most Cancer Survival Rates in USA Better Than Europe and Canada » Secondhand Smoke | A First Things Blog

 

[Chris]

1993 - GOP Health Plan (their answer to HilaryCare) includes a Mandate.
1996 - RomneyCare includes a Mandate.
2008 - GOP Candidates McCain & Romney support a Mandate, Candidate Obama does not.
2010 - Pres. Obama's Health Plan, as a concession to Republicans, includes a Mandate.
2011 - Suddenly a Mandate is Socialism and UnConstitutional.
2012 - Right Rank & File are totally clueless that their votes have been supporting a Mandate
for 20 years.

 

[JoeB131]

Like I said earlier, we are on a continuum somewhere between pure democracy and pure socialism. Assholes like you want to make us a pure socialistic country. Either one of the two would be a disaster. Unfortunately, that is exactly what you and Obama are striving for... pure socialism. God help us if you win.

Immie

Guy- Democracy is a political system.


Socialism is an economic system.

You can have both at the same time. The Europeans already do it.

I don't advocate "socialized medicine" in so much as I realize that it's already kind of here and probalby inevitable...

 

[JoeB131]

1993 - GOP Health Plan (their answer to HilaryCare) includes a Mandate.
1996 - RomneyCare includes a Mandate.
2008 - GOP Candidates McCain & Romney support a Mandate, Candidate Obama does not.
2010 - Pres. Obama's Health Plan, as a concession to Republicans, includes a Mandate.
2011 - Suddenly a Mandate is Socialism and UnConstitutional.
2012 - Right Rank & File are totally clueless that their votes have been supporting a Mandate
for 20 years.

You got the date for "RomneyCare" wrong. RomneyCare was instituted in 2005, I think. He was governor between 2003 and 2007 before people realized what a huge mistake they made

Other than that, spot on.

 

[Article 15]

1993 - GOP Health Plan (their answer to HilaryCare) includes a Mandate.
1996 - RomneyCare includes a Mandate.
2008 - GOP Candidates McCain & Romney support a Mandate, Candidate Obama does not.
2010 - Pres. Obama's Health Plan, as a concession to Republicans, includes a Mandate.
2011 - Suddenly a Mandate is Socialism and UnConstitutional.
2012 - Right Rank & File are totally clueless that their votes have been supporting a Mandate
for 20 years.

You got the date for "RomneyCare" wrong. RomneyCare was instituted in 2005, I think. He was governor between 2003 and 2007 before people realized what a huge mistake they made

Other than that, spot on.

I was gonna say the same thing. Romneycare was like ten years later but yeah, that sums it up.

 

[JoeB131]

"Dumbass, most of the rest of the industrialized world has universal health care, lower costs, they live longer and have lower infant mortality rates.". Quote from JoeB131

"Shirley Healy, like many sick Canadians, came to America for surgery. Her doctor in British Columbia told her she had only a few weeks to live because a blocked artery kept her from digesting food. Yet Canadian officials called her surgery "elective."

"The only thing elective about this surgery was I elected to live," she said."

"[America] is the country of medical innovation. This is where people come when they need treatment," Dr. Gratzer says.

"One of the excellent aspects of the current American health care system is that most people can get immediate help if they become very ill. Not true in places like Canada or the UK, where waiting lines for crucial imaging tests can range in the several months–months that for cancer patients can mean the difference between living and dying."

"American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared to 56 percent for European women. *[See Figure I.]*
American men have a five-year survival rate of 66 percent — compared to only 47 percent for European men."

]

Dumbass, I can come up with just as many horror stories about private insurance not paying for procedures... You might want to start with Nataliy Sarkisyan, a 17 year old girl who died because Cigna wouldn't pay for surgery.

Now, finding a select story about someone who fell through the cracks in Canada or the UK doesn't take away from the fact Canadians live on average three years longer than we do, have a lower infant mortality rate, and spend about 60% per capita what we do.

 

[Immanuel]

Like I said earlier, we are on a continuum somewhere between pure democracy and pure socialism. Assholes like you want to make us a pure socialistic country. Either one of the two would be a disaster. Unfortunately, that is exactly what you and Obama are striving for... pure socialism. God help us if you win.

Immie

Guy- Democracy is a political system.


Socialism is an economic system.

You can have both at the same time. The Europeans already do it.

I don't advocate "socialized medicine" in so much as I realize that it's already kind of here and probalby inevitable...

Dude, you can't have totally free markets and pure socialism at the same time which is what we were talking about earlier.

You want to eliminate the way of life that America has known since its inception. You seem to want to make it into the next Venezuela or Cuba. You advocate enslavement and you sure as hell don't seem to have a problem with signing over your freedoms to the Blessed One.

Whether it is inevitable or not, you are preaching it as your blessed one would have you preach it. I happen to agree with you that it is more than likely inevitable, because so many people in America have decided that the government should feed, cloth, shelter and tell them how many squares of TP they can use.

America as we knew it is taking its dying breathes thanks to socialists such as Obama. And so many people are singing his praises?

Immie

 

[Chris]

Like I said earlier, we are on a continuum somewhere between pure democracy and pure socialism. Assholes like you want to make us a pure socialistic country. Either one of the two would be a disaster. Unfortunately, that is exactly what you and Obama are striving for... pure socialism. God help us if you win.

Immie

Guy- Democracy is a political system.


Socialism is an economic system.

You can have both at the same time. The Europeans already do it.

I don't advocate "socialized medicine" in so much as I realize that it's already kind of here and probalby inevitable...

Dude, you can't have totally free markets and pure socialism at the same time which is what we were talking about earlier.

You want to eliminate the way of life that America has known since its inception. You seem to want to make it into the next Venezuela or Cuba. You advocate enslavement and you sure as hell don't seem to have a problem with signing over your freedoms to the Blessed One.

Whether it is inevitable or not, you are preaching it as your blessed one would have you preach it. I happen to agree with you that it is more than likely inevitable, because so many people in America have decided that the government should feed, cloth, shelter and tell them how many squares of TP they can use.

America as we knew it is taking its dying breathes thanks to socialists such as Obama. And so many people are singing his praises?

Immie

The happiest place on earth is socialist....

For the past decade, social scientists and pollsters have given elaborate questionnaires to hundreds of thousands of people around the globe. Two of the largest studies that rank the happiness of countries around the world are the World Map of Happiness from the University of Leiscester and the World Database of Happiness from Ruut Veenhoven of Erasmus University Rotterdam. All the happiness surveys ask people basically the same question: How happy are you?



"The answer you get is not only how they feel right now, but also how they feel about their entire life," explained Dan Buettner, who has studied happiness and longevity around the world through his Blue Zones project Buettner said that if you mine all the databases of universities and research centers, you'll find that the happiest place on earth is ? Denmark. Cold, dreary, unspectacular Denmark.

Could the Danes really be the happiest people in the world? When ABC News anchor Bill Weir traveled there to find out, he asked random Danes to rate themselves in terms of happiness, on a scale of one to 10. Many people rated themselves at least an eight, and there were several nines and 10s. Finally, one grouchy Dane came along who said she didn't believe Danes were so happy. But then she quickly conceded that she herself felt rather content with her life, and said Danes in general had very little to complain about.
Danes do have one potential complaint: high taxes. The happiest people in the world pay some of the highest taxes in the world -- between 50 percent and 70 percent of their incomes. In exchange, the government covers all health care and education, and spends more on children and the elderly than any country in the world per capita. With just 5.5 million people, the system is efficient, and people feel "tryghed" -- the Danish word for "tucked in" -- like a snug child.
Those high taxes have another effect. Since a banker can end up taking home as much money as an artist, people don't chose careers based on income or status. "They have this thing called 'Jante-lov,' which essentially says, 'You're no better then anybody else,'" said Buettner. "A garbage man can live in a middle-class neighborhood and hold his head high."

Denmark: The Happiest Place on Earth - ABC News

 

[JoeB131]

Dude, you can't have totally free markets and pure socialism at the same time which is what we were talking about earlier.

You want to eliminate the way of life that America has known since its inception. You seem to want to make it into the next Venezuela or Cuba. You advocate enslavement and you sure as hell don't seem to have a problem with signing over your freedoms to the Blessed One.

Whether it is inevitable or not, you are preaching it as your blessed one would have you preach it. I happen to agree with you that it is more than likely inevitable, because so many people in America have decided that the government should feed, cloth, shelter and tell them how many squares of TP they can use.

America as we knew it is taking its dying breathes thanks to socialists such as Obama. And so many people are singing his praises?

Immie

Guy, I would love it if we all made enough money were NO ONE had to rely on government.

Unfortunately, the "Free Market" is based on a philosophy of "I've got mine, fuck you."

You fools made your own mess when you decided that "Instead of paying two guys a fair wage, I'll lay one off and make the other guy work twice as hard for less money!" Don't come whining to folks like me now that you've back us into this corner.

I didn't vote for Obama last time, but I'll vote for him this time because I've gotten sick of getting screwed over by the Mitt Romneys of the world.

 

[Immanuel]

Dude, you can't have totally free markets and pure socialism at the same time which is what we were talking about earlier.

You want to eliminate the way of life that America has known since its inception. You seem to want to make it into the next Venezuela or Cuba. You advocate enslavement and you sure as hell don't seem to have a problem with signing over your freedoms to the Blessed One.

Whether it is inevitable or not, you are preaching it as your blessed one would have you preach it. I happen to agree with you that it is more than likely inevitable, because so many people in America have decided that the government should feed, cloth, shelter and tell them how many squares of TP they can use.

America as we knew it is taking its dying breathes thanks to socialists such as Obama. And so many people are singing his praises?

Immie

Guy, I would love it if we all made enough money were NO ONE had to rely on government.

Unfortunately, the "Free Market" is based on a philosophy of "I've got mine, fuck you."

You fools made your own mess when you decided that "Instead of paying two guys a fair wage, I'll lay one off and make the other guy work twice as hard for less money!" Don't come whining to folks like me now that you've back us into this corner.

I didn't vote for Obama last time, but I'll vote for him this time because I've gotten sick of getting screwed over by the Mitt Romneys of the world.

So instead you bend over, drop your drawers and beg Obama to screw you?

There is no significant difference between Romney and Obama when it comes to screwing us over. That's what I have been trying to say all along. Obama isn't one of us. He's just like Romney and Kerry and he'll screw you over faster than you can say "Sally sells shells by the seashore", once let alone five times.

Immie

 

[JoeB131]

So instead you bend over, drop your drawers and beg Obama to screw you?

There is no significant difference between Romney and Obama when it comes to screwing us over. That's what I have been trying to say all along. Obama isn't one of us. He's just like Romney and Kerry and he'll screw you over faster than you can say "Sally sells shells by the seashore", once let alone five times.

Immie

Yes, you've been saying that there's no difference and they are all crooks and all the other trite cliches on your way to show up at a Tea Party rally with a misspelled sign.

I don't think Obama's been an effective president, but Romney is outright fucking evil. And a Mormon. But I repeat myself.

 

[Immanuel]

So instead you bend over, drop your drawers and beg Obama to screw you?

There is no significant difference between Romney and Obama when it comes to screwing us over. That's what I have been trying to say all along. Obama isn't one of us. He's just like Romney and Kerry and he'll screw you over faster than you can say "Sally sells shells by the seashore", once let alone five times.

Immie

Yes, you've been saying that there's no difference and they are all crooks and all the other trite cliches on your way to show up at a Tea Party rally with a misspelled sign.

I don't think Obama's been an effective president, but Romney is outright fucking evil. And a Mormon. But I repeat myself.

Why don't you just come out and tell the truth that you worship at the altar of Obama?

BTW: Never been to a Tea Party Rally, had no intention of going and still have no intention of showing up should they reform. How was the Occupy sit-in? Have you gotten rid of the fleas yet?

Immie