POLL: Cain, Romney and Perry all beat Obama

[rightwinger]

The Obamacrat Jobs Disaster

We were creating lots of jobs that were out-pacing the population workforce growth rate until the DEMOCRATS were elected in 2006 & took control January 2007. The jobs creation machine went off the rails 3 months after these assholes took power. A year & 3 months later the jobs train went off the cliff. Their socialistic wet dream that has turned into a nightmare for the now unemployed.

Interesting theory

Can you point to specific legislation passed by the Democrats that caused the loss of all those jobs? Otherwise, what supports your theory?

 

[yidnar]

Too bad the election is still a year away huh?

I wonder how low Obama's approval rating will be a year from now !!! are you stocking up on ski masks and spray paint yet !!!

 

[KissMy]

Too bad the election is still a year away huh?

I wonder how low Obama's approval rating will be a year from now !!! are you stocking up on ski masks and spray paint yet !!!

Obama's approval rating will be in the single digits a year from now!

 

[KissMy]

The Obamacrat Jobs Disaster

We were creating lots of jobs that were out-pacing the population workforce growth rate until the DEMOCRATS were elected in 2006 & took control January 2007. The jobs creation machine went off the rails 3 months after these assholes took power. A year & 3 months later the jobs train went off the cliff. Their socialistic wet dream that has turned into a nightmare for the now unemployed.

Interesting theory

Can you point to specific legislation passed by the Democrats that caused the loss of all those jobs? Otherwise, what supports your theory?

Democrats like picking winners and losers. They are Crony Socialists. They create a false problem & new regulation to kill the free market economy. Then they hire their Cronies (or give them government loan guarantees) to "solve" the problem or "help" other companies comply with the new regulations. The Cronies then make large donations to Democrats and their PAC's. It's the same scam they've been running for 70 years.

Democrats know regulations kill jobs & are proud of it.

CNBC Interview of Democrat Senator Barney Frank

Barney Frank - "I think that the financial sector included an element of activity that was not terribly productive. And while we didn't exclusively ban it, if the effect of regulating it better, saying you can't sell..."

Andrew Ross Sorkin -"But less jobs at a time when people want more jobs, correct?"

Barney Frank - "Yes. And that is when you stop an activity. Look, if you knock off drug dealers you'll have fewer jobs. These are not drug dealers. I don't think make work makes sense for the federal government. I don't think it makes sense in the private sector"... "If the effect of better regulation, of requiring people to post capital is that there are then going to be fewer people doing some of the activities that I don't think were especially useful that is a reasonable price"

 

[rightwinger]

The Obamacrat Jobs Disaster

We were creating lots of jobs that were out-pacing the population workforce growth rate until the DEMOCRATS were elected in 2006 & took control January 2007. The jobs creation machine went off the rails 3 months after these assholes took power. A year & 3 months later the jobs train went off the cliff. Their socialistic wet dream that has turned into a nightmare for the now unemployed.

Interesting theory

Can you point to specific legislation passed by the Democrats that caused the loss of all those jobs? Otherwise, what supports your theory?

Democrats like picking winners and losers. They are Crony Socialists. They create a false problem & new regulation to kill the free market economy. Then they hire their Cronies (or give them government loan guarantees) to "solve" the problem or "help" other companies comply with the new regulations. The Cronies then make large donations to Democrats and their PAC's. It's the same scam they've been running for 70 years.

Democrats know regulations kill jobs & are proud of it.

CNBC Interview of Democrat Senator Barney Frank

Barney Frank - "I think that the financial sector included an element of activity that was not terribly productive. And while we didn't exclusively ban it, if the effect of regulating it better, saying you can't sell..."

Andrew Ross Sorkin -"But less jobs at a time when people want more jobs, correct?"

Barney Frank - "Yes. And that is when you stop an activity. Look, if you knock off drug dealers you'll have fewer jobs. These are not drug dealers. I don't think make work makes sense for the federal government. I don't think it makes sense in the private sector"... "If the effect of better regulation, of requiring people to post capital is that there are then going to be fewer people doing some of the activities that I don't think were especially useful that is a reasonable price"

Nice try.......but FAIL

You fail to provide any legislation passed by democrats that would lead to the loss of 10 million jobs. Using your favorite homosexual whipping boy is not the answer. Don't you ever tire of playing both sides of the fence?

What was it? Too much regulation of the financial sector or too little regulation?

 

[Amelia]

Lie where?

A lie is knowningly telling an untruth. Reagan lied many times. And that's easy enough to prove. He lied about some very substantial issues. As did George W. Bush.

But Obama? Lie? No. Got some things wrong? Yep.

Example 1: The healthcare mandate is a tax, and it isn't a tax. Depending upon which group he is trying to sell it to - the people or the courts.

Example 2: Stating his goal of single payer healthcare then claiming he never said he supported it.

Example 3: His broken promise over supporting a comprehensive immigration bill in his first year. A broken promise wouldn't be the same as a lie necessarily but he was so explicit about how this particular promise was not just words. He made it a guarantee. So in not following through, he made it a lie.

Example 4: During the budget battles, when Democrats had offered up $10.5 billion in savings after the House asked for $61 billion, Obama said that the Democrats had met Republicans halfway. That could be only an error, but it's an offensive one since Obama used it as justification to call the Republicans ... um what was it ... did he say they were behaving like children? Sorry, I can't remember the exact wording, but it was offensive, and if he is going to insult us he should get his figures right. He used his mathematical fudging to try to claim some high ground which didn't exist. The Democrats were nowhere near meeting the Republicans halfway.


That's just a few off the top of my head. I could come up with more upon reflection. But it's not like I have an organized file of them.

None appear to be a lie....keep trying

The healthcare mandate is a tax but it isn't a tax?

I never said what I said?

10 is 1/2 of 60?

If it's not lies, it's a disconnect with reality. Which is worse than a lie when it's the president doing it.




He says so many things and then goes against them. As a senator he said things would be wrong and then did what he said would be wrong. Sometimes did it when still a senator. Sometimes waiting until he was president to change his tune.

Recently he said he wouldn't be commenting on the presidential debates. He'd let us Republicans work it out among us and then take on whoever we chose. But then he couldn't resist commenting on the debates.

I was seriously annoyed in December when he said he was going to take Congress to the mat on not extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and then he didn't even try. He folded right away. Barely missed a beat between saying he wouldn't compromise and giving in.






Whether it's lies or mistakes or lack of self-control or what, it's mounting and it's most uncool.

 

[rightwinger]

Example 1: The healthcare mandate is a tax, and it isn't a tax. Depending upon which group he is trying to sell it to - the people or the courts.

Example 2: Stating his goal of single payer healthcare then claiming he never said he supported it.

Example 3: His broken promise over supporting a comprehensive immigration bill in his first year. A broken promise wouldn't be the same as a lie necessarily but he was so explicit about how this particular promise was not just words. He made it a guarantee. So in not following through, he made it a lie.

Example 4: During the budget battles, when Democrats had offered up $10.5 billion in savings after the House asked for $61 billion, Obama said that the Democrats had met Republicans halfway. That could be only an error, but it's an offensive one since Obama used it as justification to call the Republicans ... um what was it ... did he say they were behaving like children? Sorry, I can't remember the exact wording, but it was offensive, and if he is going to insult us he should get his figures right. He used his mathematical fudging to try to claim some high ground which didn't exist. The Democrats were nowhere near meeting the Republicans halfway.


That's just a few off the top of my head. I could come up with more upon reflection. But it's not like I have an organized file of them.

None appear to be a lie....keep trying

The healthcare mandate is a tax but it isn't a tax?

I never said what I said?

10 is 1/2 of 60?

If it's not lies, it's a disconnect with reality. Which is worse than a lie when it's the president doing it.




He says so many things and then goes against them. As a senator he said things would be wrong and then did what he said would be wrong. Sometimes did it when still a senator. Sometimes waiting until he was president to change his tune.

Recently he said he wouldn't be commenting on the presidential debates. He'd let us Republicans work it out among us and then take on whoever we chose. But then he couldn't resist commenting on the debates.

I was seriously annoyed in December when he said he was going to take Congress to the mat on not extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and then he didn't even try. He folded right away. Barely missed a beat between saying he wouldn't compromise and giving in.


Whether it's lies or mistakes or lack of self-control or what, it's mounting and it's most uncool.

Conditions change after you get elected. So does the political climate. Adapting to meet the new reality is not lying

 

[elvis]

None appear to be a lie....keep trying

The healthcare mandate is a tax but it isn't a tax?

I never said what I said?

10 is 1/2 of 60?

If it's not lies, it's a disconnect with reality. Which is worse than a lie when it's the president doing it.




He says so many things and then goes against them. As a senator he said things would be wrong and then did what he said would be wrong. Sometimes did it when still a senator. Sometimes waiting until he was president to change his tune.

Recently he said he wouldn't be commenting on the presidential debates. He'd let us Republicans work it out among us and then take on whoever we chose. But then he couldn't resist commenting on the debates.

I was seriously annoyed in December when he said he was going to take Congress to the mat on not extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and then he didn't even try. He folded right away. Barely missed a beat between saying he wouldn't compromise and giving in.


Whether it's lies or mistakes or lack of self-control or what, it's mounting and it's most uncool.

Conditions change after you get elected. So does the political climate. Adapting to meet the new reality is not lying

Candidates should be more careful in the future about promises they make.. yes?

 

[Amelia]

None appear to be a lie....keep trying

The healthcare mandate is a tax but it isn't a tax?

I never said what I said?

10 is 1/2 of 60?

If it's not lies, it's a disconnect with reality. Which is worse than a lie when it's the president doing it.




He says so many things and then goes against them. As a senator he said things would be wrong and then did what he said would be wrong. Sometimes did it when still a senator. Sometimes waiting until he was president to change his tune.

Recently he said he wouldn't be commenting on the presidential debates. He'd let us Republicans work it out among us and then take on whoever we chose. But then he couldn't resist commenting on the debates.

I was seriously annoyed in December when he said he was going to take Congress to the mat on not extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and then he didn't even try. He folded right away. Barely missed a beat between saying he wouldn't compromise and giving in.


Whether it's lies or mistakes or lack of self-control or what, it's mounting and it's most uncool.

Conditions change after you get elected. So does the political climate. Adapting to meet the new reality is not lying

"I didn't say what I said" is a not an adaptation. It is an untruth. Whether he said what he said before he became President or after.

"10 is one half of 60" is not true before one is a President and it's not true after. I don't care what the conditions are.


Wellllll, I could invent a mathematical group where one element was named 10 and another was named 60 and define the group so that 10 + 10 was 60, but as long as we're dealing with the real number system as most of us know it and not an abstract algebra course, 10 is not half of 60 and not even the president can make it so.



When he said it would be wrong to vote against a President's SC nominee for ideological reasons and said John Roberts was well qualified, but then turned around and voted no because someone pointed out that a 'yes' vote would hurt his presidential prospects, that wasn't a condition changing after he became president. That was him (a) showing how little he respected his own principles and (b) putting himself on very weak ground to ask for bipartisanship when he became president.

In December when he said he wouldn't compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts and then immediately caved and extended them, that wasn't a condition changing after he took office.




But it's fun to try to hear you justify his misstatements and caving.

 

[Amelia]

So many times Obama has seemed like he was on the brink of doing things which would earn him a second term - something which would make even me as a Republican say "well-played" - but then he does something wild or weak or weird and I'm sad for America.

 

[rightwinger]

The healthcare mandate is a tax but it isn't a tax?

I never said what I said?

10 is 1/2 of 60?

If it's not lies, it's a disconnect with reality. Which is worse than a lie when it's the president doing it.




He says so many things and then goes against them. As a senator he said things would be wrong and then did what he said would be wrong. Sometimes did it when still a senator. Sometimes waiting until he was president to change his tune.

Recently he said he wouldn't be commenting on the presidential debates. He'd let us Republicans work it out among us and then take on whoever we chose. But then he couldn't resist commenting on the debates.

I was seriously annoyed in December when he said he was going to take Congress to the mat on not extending the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and then he didn't even try. He folded right away. Barely missed a beat between saying he wouldn't compromise and giving in.


Whether it's lies or mistakes or lack of self-control or what, it's mounting and it's most uncool.

Conditions change after you get elected. So does the political climate. Adapting to meet the new reality is not lying

"I didn't say what I said" is a not an adaptation. It is an untruth. Whether he said what he said before he became President or after.

"10 is one half of 60" is not true before one is a President and it's not true after. I don't care what the conditions are.


Wellllll, I could invent a mathematical group where one element was named 10 and another was named 60 and define the group so that 10 + 10 was 60, but as long as we're dealing with the real number system as most of us know it and not an abstract algebra course, 10 is not half of 60 and not even the president can make it so.



When he said it would be wrong to vote against a President's SC nominee for ideological reasons and said John Roberts was well qualified, but then turned around and voted no because someone pointed out that a 'yes' vote would hurt his presidential prospects, that wasn't a condition changing after he became president. That was him (a) showing how little he respected his own principles and (b) putting himself on very weak ground to ask for bipartisanship when he became president.

In December when he said he wouldn't compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts and then immediately caved and extended them, that wasn't a condition changing after he took office.




But it's fun to try to hear you justify his misstatements and caving.

You have still not identified a single lie

"the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud" is a lie

 

[Old Rocks]

I think I'm going to run with Herman.

Cripes, I'm still sweating it. But I think he is the only one that can meet my expectations and still nuke the punk from Chicago.

Wow a simple post that makes sense and is about the subject, thank you
Cain or Perry for me, Cain right now
and dont worry, Obama is done. who would really want 4 more years of this?

There are so many ways we can take him out.

It's just the moment to play it right. No pun intended.

Oh my, are you related to James Hoffa?

 

[elvis]

Conditions change after you get elected. So does the political climate. Adapting to meet the new reality is not lying

"I didn't say what I said" is a not an adaptation. It is an untruth. Whether he said what he said before he became President or after.

"10 is one half of 60" is not true before one is a President and it's not true after. I don't care what the conditions are.


Wellllll, I could invent a mathematical group where one element was named 10 and another was named 60 and define the group so that 10 + 10 was 60, but as long as we're dealing with the real number system as most of us know it and not an abstract algebra course, 10 is not half of 60 and not even the president can make it so.



When he said it would be wrong to vote against a President's SC nominee for ideological reasons and said John Roberts was well qualified, but then turned around and voted no because someone pointed out that a 'yes' vote would hurt his presidential prospects, that wasn't a condition changing after he became president. That was him (a) showing how little he respected his own principles and (b) putting himself on very weak ground to ask for bipartisanship when he became president.

In December when he said he wouldn't compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts and then immediately caved and extended them, that wasn't a condition changing after he took office.




But it's fun to try to hear you justify his misstatements and caving.

You have still not identified a single lie

"the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud" is a lie

No. that wasn't a lie either. It was manipulative, but it wasn't a lie.

 

[elvis]

Wow a simple post that makes sense and is about the subject, thank you
Cain or Perry for me, Cain right now
and dont worry, Obama is done. who would really want 4 more years of this?

There are so many ways we can take him out.

It's just the moment to play it right. No pun intended.

Oh my, are you related to James Hoffa?

It's a riddle.

 

[Amelia]

Conditions change after you get elected. So does the political climate. Adapting to meet the new reality is not lying

"I didn't say what I said" is a not an adaptation. It is an untruth. Whether he said what he said before he became President or after.

"10 is one half of 60" is not true before one is a President and it's not true after. I don't care what the conditions are.


Wellllll, I could invent a mathematical group where one element was named 10 and another was named 60 and define the group so that 10 + 10 was 60, but as long as we're dealing with the real number system as most of us know it and not an abstract algebra course, 10 is not half of 60 and not even the president can make it so.



When he said it would be wrong to vote against a President's SC nominee for ideological reasons and said John Roberts was well qualified, but then turned around and voted no because someone pointed out that a 'yes' vote would hurt his presidential prospects, that wasn't a condition changing after he became president. That was him (a) showing how little he respected his own principles and (b) putting himself on very weak ground to ask for bipartisanship when he became president.

In December when he said he wouldn't compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts and then immediately caved and extended them, that wasn't a condition changing after he took office.




But it's fun to try to hear you justify his misstatements and caving.

You have still not identified a single lie

"the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud" is a lie

Am I on Candid Camera?



Buh bye.

 

[Old Rocks]

do us all a favor
keep it simple

Simple is as simple does. It is simple for simple sake, is often times a recipe for disaster. Recall, we elected a simple man to the White House to server us, and look what happened. Bush 43, plunged the nation into war, debt and more deficit - not to mention the acute fact that his failure to produce a domestic, helped to accelerate an imploding economy.

The "economic meltdown" has nothing to do with spending 4 trillion dollars we do not have and getting 0 in return.

Really? Because that's not what Republicans are saying out on the campaign trail right now. Republicans, are blaming Obama's domestic agenda (by way of the People who voted for him) for the economic meltdown, or have you not been paying attention? Just last night, all but Run Paul, were in accord that Obama's domestic policy was the cause for the economic crisis AND the inability to produce jobs. I watched the debates last night and took note of what was said.

You can't magically pull numbers from thin air, and then blame Obama, for your inability to get it right. It is not that you can't understand, it is that you are intentionally trying not to understand WHY the debt has increased AFTER the 2008 economic meltdown.

TARP I
TARP II
Stimulus I


I also noticed that you failed (as every single Republican presidential hopeful) to mention that the Reserve Fund was fully paid for - 100%. That means that the total cost of the final National Healthcare system, won't be anywhere near what Republicans have lied to the American People about. In fact, it could end up being less than $200 billion, all in, over 10 years. That's relative cheap, given the benefit of having everybody covered.

Furthermore, the Lewin Group, claims that over a period of about 10 years, the accumulative savings throughout the entire healthcare system would range up to $517 billion. Let's do the math:

$200 billion in
$517 billion out

That's a Net Positive development when all is said and done. But, Republicans don't want America to know these truths, so they keep lying about Death Panels and skyrocketing costs. None of which are true.

This is what I mean when I say people opposed to Obama's healthcare initiative, either did not take adequate time to study it, or are by nature, such hyper-partisan creatures, that no matter what evidence you put before them, they will Just Say No To Obama for any reason, even when the reason is no reason at all.

That is the issue we have with Obama
he has locked down the fossil fuel business when we are allowing Canada and mexico to make money off of us, and create millions of jobs we could create right here
Nuclear power

what else?

The issue is that you are not taking the necessary time to properly educate yourself. I just dispelled the increased cost of Obamacare for you. Now, you want to prove that somehow, our country will maintain its footing in the global economy, by remaining the worlds largest consumer of fossil fuel based energy sources, and that drill-baby-drill, is somehow the answer to our economic problems in the 21st century and beyond.

The answer to securing our future economy, is to design a smarter economic model that encompasses BOTH:

- Clean and sustainable energy creation
- Clean and sustainable energy consumption
- Exportation of new clean energy technology to the world

If we can do those three things, then we will have the strongest economy and the strongest Middle Class that the world has ever known. If we fail to do this, then China, will eat our fossil fuel lunch.

Class dismissed.

I've got no more time for this debate today, but I'll visit the forum again some time in the near future.

Very well said. And will get you labeled a commie in this forum.

 

[JakeStarkey]

There is some really silly Hard Right punksta nonsense here.

Only Romney stands a good chance of beating Obama, Perry a minor chance, no one else any chance.

You far righters are not helping matters with your nattering.

Romney will be nominated, end of story. Hopefully, he will beat Obama.

If the far right messes this up once again, you will never be permitted any say in GOP matters.

Romney is just a liberal bitch.

The Presidency doesn't matter at all. We need to take the Senate and hold the House. The Karl Roves and the John McCains of the world just want to keep playing.

Screw RINO's. And if anything I will work like a dog to do it. And trust me. I really know politics and how to play boards.

The RINOs are the Hard Right. They are not the party of Lincoln, Eisenhower, and Reagan. We finally are beating these people down, and the Republic will thank us true Republicans for it.

 

[Full-Auto]

Conditions change after you get elected. So does the political climate. Adapting to meet the new reality is not lying

"I didn't say what I said" is a not an adaptation. It is an untruth. Whether he said what he said before he became President or after.

"10 is one half of 60" is not true before one is a President and it's not true after. I don't care what the conditions are.


Wellllll, I could invent a mathematical group where one element was named 10 and another was named 60 and define the group so that 10 + 10 was 60, but as long as we're dealing with the real number system as most of us know it and not an abstract algebra course, 10 is not half of 60 and not even the president can make it so.



When he said it would be wrong to vote against a President's SC nominee for ideological reasons and said John Roberts was well qualified, but then turned around and voted no because someone pointed out that a 'yes' vote would hurt his presidential prospects, that wasn't a condition changing after he became president. That was him (a) showing how little he respected his own principles and (b) putting himself on very weak ground to ask for bipartisanship when he became president.

In December when he said he wouldn't compromise on extending the Bush tax cuts and then immediately caved and extended them, that wasn't a condition changing after he took office.




But it's fun to try to hear you justify his misstatements and caving.

You have still not identified a single lie

"the smoking gun will be a mushroom cloud" is a lie

Welcome to a different and very real reality.


List of Obama's Lies | Barack Obama Lies

Obama LAUNDRY LIST OF LIES

Thats already more then you can handle. But there is more.

1-10 of 266,000,000 results

 

[bodecea]

Poll: Herman Cain, Rick Perry, Mitt Romney All Beat Obama - Washington Whispers (usnews.com)

you want a dose of reality?
DRUDGE REPORT: OBAMA PITTSBURGH 2008 VS. 2011

check that out

Ahem....

Perry beat no one but himself. Even Obama would win against Perry.

I am backing Romney currently but Cain is doing exceptionally well so far. I am watching him quite carefully.

I actually like Cain.

 

[JRK]

do us all a favor
keep it simple

Simple is as simple does. It is simple for simple sake, is often times a recipe for disaster. Recall, we elected a simple man to the White House to server us, and look what happened. Bush 43, plunged the nation into war, debt and more deficit - not to mention the acute fact that his failure to produce a domestic, helped to accelerate an imploding economy.

[I]Really? it was all GWB
Democrat Quotes on Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction
We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real ..."
- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

There are 20+- more, let us not forget this
Chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix remarked in January 2003 that "Iraq appears not to have come to a genuine acceptance—not even today—of the disarmament, which was demanded of it and which it needs to carry out to win the confidence of the world and to live in peace."[115] Among other things he noted that 1,000 short tons (910 t) of chemical agent were unaccounted for, information on Iraq's VX nerve agent program was missing, and that "no convincing evidence" was presented for the destruction of 8,500 litres (1,900 imp gal; 2,200 US gal) of anthrax that had been declared.[115]

Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[/I]
Really? Because that's not what Republicans are saying out on the campaign trail right now. Republicans, are blaming Obama's domestic agenda (by way of the People who voted for him) for the economic meltdown, or have you not been paying attention? Just last night, all but Run Paul, were in accord that Obama's domestic policy was the cause for the economic crisis AND the inability to produce jobs. I watched the debates last night and took note of what was said.

I agree with R Paul. There is no reason for us to have spent 4 trillion dollars and be where we are
And as far as pulling numbers out of the air, you and Obama both though the govt could fix this situation we are in by printing money and giving it to unions I guess. what ever has been don with it failed


You can't magically pull numbers from thin air, and then blame Obama, for your inability to get it right. It is not that you can't understand, it is that you are intentionally trying not to understand WHY the debt has increased AFTER the 2008 economic meltdown.

TARP I,
TARP II
Stimulus I

You made my point better than I could ever hoped to

I also noticed that you failed (as every single Republican presidential hopeful) to mention that the Reserve Fund was fully paid for - 100%. That means that the total cost of the final National Healthcare system, won't be anywhere near what Republicans have lied to the American People about. In fact, it could end up being less than $200 billion, all in, over 10 years. That's relative cheap, given the benefit of having everybody covered.

Furthermore, the Lewin Group, claims that over a period of about 10 years, the accumulative savings throughout the entire healthcare system would range up to $517 billion. Let's do the math:

$200 billion in
$517 billion out

That's a Net Positive development when all is said and done. But, Republicans don't want America to know these truths, so they keep lying about Death Panels and skyrocketing costs. None of which are true.

This is what I mean when I say people opposed to Obama's healthcare initiative, either did not take adequate time to study it, or are by nature, such hyper-partisan creatures, that no matter what evidence you put before them, they will Just Say No To Obama for any reason, even when the reason is no reason at all.

That is the issue we have with Obama
he has locked down the fossil fuel business when we are allowing Canada and mexico to make money off of us, and create millions of jobs we could create right here
Nuclear power

what else?

The issue is that you are not taking the necessary time to properly educate yourself. I just dispelled the increased cost of Obamacare for you. Now, you want to prove that somehow, our country will maintain its footing in the global economy, by remaining the worlds largest consumer of fossil fuel based energy sources, and that drill-baby-drill, is somehow the answer to our economic problems in the 21st century and beyond.

Obama-care? Properly educate myself?
Obama-care is not out of the supreme court yet
I just finished a 500 million dollar project that installed 4 scrubbers that the consumer paid for so we could be using that cheap coal BHO has put a halt to


The answer to securing our future economy, is to design a smarter economic model that encompasses BOTH:

- Clean and sustainable energy creation
- Clean and sustainable energy consumption
- Exportation of new clean energy technology to the world

If we can do those three things, then we will have the strongest economy and the strongest Middle Class that the world has ever known. If we fail to do this, then China, will eat our fossil fuel lunch.

Class dismissed.

Look your not even on the radar

I've got no more time for this debate today, but I'll visit the forum again some time in the near future.

Very well said. And will get you labeled a commie in this forum.

He was not labeled a commie, he was corrected