Question for libs

[GilbertArizona]

Obama voted against the Iraq war? Wow. That must have been fraudulent. Obama wasn't even a ******* Senator at the time of the Iraq war vote, you dumbass. However, at the time of the vote (2002) he did comment that his position was 'not that different to that of the President' (that President being George Bush).

I'm glad you didn't vote.

Thanks for the clarification Hillary.

 

[California Girl]

Obama voted against the Iraq war? Wow. That must have been fraudulent. Obama wasn't even a ******* Senator at the time of the Iraq war vote, you dumbass. However, at the time of the vote (2002) he did comment that his position was 'not that different to that of the President' (that President being George Bush).

I'm glad you didn't vote.

Thanks for the clarification Hillary.

It's not my fault you're too stupid to know basic facts. Don't get grumpy, get educated.

 

[saveliberty]

One that exterminates right wing pundits?

We are easy to find, but damn hard to kill. I personally welcome the challenge.

 

[GilbertArizona]

It's not my fault you're too stupid to know basic facts. Don't get grumpy, get educated.

Hillary, when you first made that claim about Obama's position on Iraq you said it was from 2004 and now you're sayng in it was at the time of the vote in 2002. Don't try convincing me your head isn't sometimes up your ass either.

 

[California Girl]

It's not my fault you're too stupid to know basic facts. Don't get grumpy, get educated.

Hillary, when you first made that claim about Obama's position on Iraq you said it was from 2004 and now you're sayng in it was at the time of the vote in 2002. Don't try convincing me your head isn't sometimes up your ass either.

No, I didn't. You're either stupid or a liar, Gilibert.

And, it's not a 'claim', it's a fact. Obama did NOT vote against the war. Because he wasn't a Senator. Are you too stupid to understand that?

 

[GilbertArizona]

Now are or aren't you using Hillary Clinton's line against Obama from the primary and changing the time frame from 2004 to 2002?

From factcheck.org:
"Nobody can dispute that Barack Obama opposed the Iraq war from the start and, with striking prescience, predicted U.S. troops would be mired in a costly conflict that fanned "the flames of the Middle East." But nobody should accept at face value the Illinois senator's claim that he was a "courageous leader" who opposed the war at a great political risk. ... And once elected to the U.S. Senate two years later, Obama waited months to show national leadership on Iraq"

 

[Truthmatters]

OK liberals is this the kind of government you want to live under? A government that just deems important major legislation as law without a vote, is this what all you aging hippies marched for? did you invision living under a dictatorship where our representatives don't represent us but they represent the president.

Is this the government that my best friend lost his life for in the disgusting filthy streets of Baghdad? A government that tells the people what to do and how to do it and to sit down and shut up if you don't agree with IT. What in the world are our schools teaching people that leads to a neocomunist taking over our country without a shot.

So come on libs tell me this is what you've always wanted, now you've got it and now we all have to live with it.

Its called representative democracy.

You see they are voting for what is obviously best for the most Americans. The lies that have been spread ( government takeover of HC, death panels, communism and the like) have swayed some the people away and the bills weakness has swayed others away from it.


The dems are pretty much going to get hit wether they pass it or not in the polls. So there is only one thing left to do. The right thing. the thing that will actully help Americans. Once the real repercussions are felt by the people all this bullshit will fall away and Americans will be better off.They wikll aslo HATE the republican party for lying to them.

 

[Care4all]

I'd like to consider myself fairly liberal, but then that is mostly because I lack respect for the alternative.

For example, what's with this "Without a vote nonsense?" I mean, what rock were you under throughout 2008 when Obama made it his campaign's cornerstone? Now I didn't vote for Obama because I had enough of Washington's running up the debt with Bush's expanded healthcare entitlements. But as I said, I simply prefer to consider myself liberal.

You say you lost your best friend in Baghdad. Well I couldn't vote for McCain because concerning all those that voted for that war, I don't consider their hands all that much cleaner than those of bin Laden. I was particularly upset with Bush, from the start it seemed to me he was backtracking from the statement made during the 2000 debate when he said he would be careful about nation building. I think we need to get back to what the Constitution says about war. My only relief in seeing Obama win was that at least I had heard he voted against Bush on Iraq.

Obama voted against the Iraq war? Wow. That must have been fraudulent. Obama wasn't even a ******* Senator at the time of the Iraq war vote, you dumbass. However, at the time of the vote (2002) he did comment that his position was 'not that different to that of the President' (that President being George Bush).

I'm glad you didn't vote.

true he did not 'vote' against it!

However, he made it very public, at the very time of the vote on the iraq resolution, that he was against it and if he were in congress he would have voted against it.

 

[California Girl]

Now are or aren't you using Hillary Clinton's line against Obama from the primary and changing the time frame from 2004 to 2002?

From factcheck.org:
"Nobody can dispute that Barack Obama opposed the Iraq war from the start and, with striking prescience, predicted U.S. troops would be mired in a costly conflict that fanned "the flames of the Middle East." But nobody should accept at face value the Illinois senator's claim that he was a "courageous leader" who opposed the war at a great political risk. ... And once elected to the U.S. Senate two years later, Obama waited months to show national leadership on Iraq"

Holy shit, you just keep getting dumber!

My comment did not mention Hillary, or her comment on Obama, or 2004.

You claimed that you 'heard' that Obama voted against the Iraq war. All I did was point out the glaringly obvious. Since Obama was NOT in the Senate in 2002 (which was when the Senate voted on the war) he COULD NOT have voted for it. Stop blaming me for your own dumbassedness. Idiot.

However, as I also pointed out, back in 2002 - when the Senate was voting for war - Obama went on the record as saying that his position was 'not far from that of the President'. That means, had he been a Senator, he would have voted FOR the war.

I now need to consider whether I move you from 'stupid' to 'cretin'.

 

[Truthmatters]

how can anyone think at this point that sundays vote will be voted on by anyone who doesnt know it means the HC bill will pass?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The aging hippies are in charge now.
This is there road to utopia.
You may find yourself in a mass grave but the ends justify the means .

A bunch of goddam communists....

 

[California Girl]

I'd like to consider myself fairly liberal, but then that is mostly because I lack respect for the alternative.

For example, what's with this "Without a vote nonsense?" I mean, what rock were you under throughout 2008 when Obama made it his campaign's cornerstone? Now I didn't vote for Obama because I had enough of Washington's running up the debt with Bush's expanded healthcare entitlements. But as I said, I simply prefer to consider myself liberal.

You say you lost your best friend in Baghdad. Well I couldn't vote for McCain because concerning all those that voted for that war, I don't consider their hands all that much cleaner than those of bin Laden. I was particularly upset with Bush, from the start it seemed to me he was backtracking from the statement made during the 2000 debate when he said he would be careful about nation building. I think we need to get back to what the Constitution says about war. My only relief in seeing Obama win was that at least I had heard he voted against Bush on Iraq.

Obama voted against the Iraq war? Wow. That must have been fraudulent. Obama wasn't even a ******* Senator at the time of the Iraq war vote, you dumbass. However, at the time of the vote (2002) he did comment that his position was 'not that different to that of the President' (that President being George Bush).

I'm glad you didn't vote.

true he did not 'vote' against it!

However, he made it very public, at the very time of the vote on the iraq resolution, that he was against it and if he were in congress he would have voted against it.

I'm not interested in Obama's stance. I'm interested only in idiots who claim he voted against the war.

 

[goldcatt]

OK liberals is this the kind of government you want to live under? A government that just deems important major legislation as law without a vote,

IF this actually were to happen I would be pissed as hell, no matter what the precedent for doing it.

is this what all you aging hippies marched for?

WTF makes you think every liberal is an aging hippie?

did you invision living under a dictatorship where our representatives don't represent us but they represent the president.

No, and we do not live under such a dictatorship now. The "dictatorship" part is too laughable to even address. The President also serves as political head of his Party, it's been that way since parties began. If you think there's anything new under the sun as far as Presidents of either party bribing, threatening, conniving and cajoling Congress for votes, think again. The bigger thing to be concerned about is the special interests bribing Congress on both sides of the aisle so they can get the best representation money can buy at the expense of the individual voters, but I fail to see any concern about that in your little rant.

Is this the government that my best friend lost his life for in the disgusting filthy streets of Baghdad?

I'm sorry about your friend, but surely you understand why he was there and what he was actually fighting for - and that has nothing to do with one person in one office. Bush OR Obama. We as a nation are much, much bigger than any one person, no matter what office they hold.

A government that tells the people what to do and how to do it and to sit down and shut up if you don't agree with IT.

It's a shame you're being so badly hounded, persecuted and censored. Why, you can't even run your mouth on an internet message board.....Ooops!

What in the world are our schools teaching people that leads to a neocomunist taking over our country without a shot.

I'll agree we have a major problem with public school curriculum in this country for so many people to swallow that Obama is a Communist, neo or any other kind. Or that an election is a coup. I don't agree with much of what he's doing, but applying false labels are just a sign that you can't address the real issues.

So come on libs tell me this is what you've always wanted, now you've got it and now we all have to live with it.

Pfft. You have no idea what most liberals actually want, nor do you care.

 

[California Girl]

OK liberals is this the kind of government you want to live under? A government that just deems important major legislation as law without a vote,

IF this actually were to happen I would be pissed as hell, no matter what the precedent for doing it.

is this what all you aging hippies marched for?

WTF makes you think every liberal is an aging hippie?



No, and we do not live under such a dictatorship now. The "dictatorship" part is too laughable to even address. The President also serves as political head of his Party, it's been that way since parties began. If you think there's anything new under the sun as far as Presidents of either party bribing, threatening, conniving and cajoling Congress for votes, think again. The bigger thing to be concerned about is the special interests bribing Congress on both sides of the aisle so they can get the best representation money can buy at the expense of the individual voters, but I fail to see any concern about that in your little rant.



I'm sorry about your friend, but surely you understand why he was there and what he was actually fighting for - and that has nothing to do with one person in one office. Bush OR Obama. We as a nation are much, much bigger than any one person, no matter what office they hold.



It's a shame you're being so badly hounded, persecuted and censored. Why, you can't even run your mouth on an internet message board.....Ooops!

What in the world are our schools teaching people that leads to a neocomunist taking over our country without a shot.

I'll agree we have a major problem with public school curriculum in this country for so many people to swallow that Obama is a Communist, neo or any other kind. Or that an election is a coup. I don't agree with much of what he's doing, but applying false labels are just a sign that you can't address the real issues.

So come on libs tell me this is what you've always wanted, now you've got it and now we all have to live with it.

Pfft. You have no idea what most liberals actually want, nor do you care.

In fairness to Ram, I think he mistakes liberals (which is what you are) and progressives (which I am fairly certain you are not).

 

[PatekPhilippe]

OK liberals is this the kind of government you want to live under? A government that just deems important major legislation as law without a vote,

IF this actually were to happen I would be pissed as hell, no matter what the precedent for doing it.



WTF makes you think every liberal is an aging hippie?



No, and we do not live under such a dictatorship now. The "dictatorship" part is too laughable to even address. The President also serves as political head of his Party, it's been that way since parties began. If you think there's anything new under the sun as far as Presidents of either party bribing, threatening, conniving and cajoling Congress for votes, think again. The bigger thing to be concerned about is the special interests bribing Congress on both sides of the aisle so they can get the best representation money can buy at the expense of the individual voters, but I fail to see any concern about that in your little rant.



I'm sorry about your friend, but surely you understand why he was there and what he was actually fighting for - and that has nothing to do with one person in one office. Bush OR Obama. We as a nation are much, much bigger than any one person, no matter what office they hold.



It's a shame you're being so badly hounded, persecuted and censored. Why, you can't even run your mouth on an internet message board.....Ooops!



I'll agree we have a major problem with public school curriculum in this country for so many people to swallow that Obama is a Communist, neo or any other kind. Or that an election is a coup. I don't agree with much of what he's doing, but applying false labels are just a sign that you can't address the real issues.

So come on libs tell me this is what you've always wanted, now you've got it and now we all have to live with it.

Pfft. You have no idea what most liberals actually want, nor do you care.

In fairness to Ram, I think he mistakes liberals (which is what you are) and progressives (which I am fairly certain you are not).

as do many liberals when using the term "neo-con" and "Republican".

 

[goldcatt]

In fairness to Ram, I think he mistakes liberals (which is what you are) and progressives (which I am fairly certain you are not).

You're right about me, but even though I'm not in line with the Progressives I don't believe they are supportive of some sort of Communist dictatorship out to censor all opposition. That would be laughable if I didn't suspect he actually believes it.

You know, the first step to really understanding your own argument is to understand that of your opponent. Some of you folks on the right are pretty good about it, hyperbole aside. But quite a few I suspect actually believe the straw men are real. And that goes for some on both sides. That's sad.

 

[California Girl]

In fairness to Ram, I think he mistakes liberals (which is what you are) and progressives (which I am fairly certain you are not).

You're right about me, but even though I'm not in line with the Progressives I don't believe they are supportive of some sort of Communist dictatorship out to censor all opposition. That would be laughable if I didn't suspect he actually believes it.

You know, the first step to really understanding your own argument is to understand that of your opponent. Some of you folks on the right are pretty good about it, hyperbole aside. But quite a few I suspect actually believe the straw men are real. And that goes for some on both sides. That's sad.

See, you and I are polls apart on a lot of issues - probably not as many as we both might think though. I think the progressives don't like to think of themselves as 'socialist' or 'marxist' or 'communist' but, they believe that the government is responsible for 'caring' for its people. Therefore, they are actually socialists etc. The semantics don't matter.

I think the problem we have had over the past couple of decades is that we have lost sight of the fact that we run the country, not the government. We got lazy. That is dangerous because a lot of the lazies have suddenly woken up and found that someone's trying to steal the ground out from under them. It's not about left or right to me, it's about government.

 

[goldcatt]

In fairness to Ram, I think he mistakes liberals (which is what you are) and progressives (which I am fairly certain you are not).

You're right about me, but even though I'm not in line with the Progressives I don't believe they are supportive of some sort of Communist dictatorship out to censor all opposition. That would be laughable if I didn't suspect he actually believes it.

You know, the first step to really understanding your own argument is to understand that of your opponent. Some of you folks on the right are pretty good about it, hyperbole aside. But quite a few I suspect actually believe the straw men are real. And that goes for some on both sides. That's sad.

See, you and I are polls apart on a lot of issues - probably not as many as we both might think though. I think the progressives don't like to think of themselves as 'socialist' or 'marxist' or 'communist' but, they believe that the government is responsible for 'caring' for its people. Therefore, they are actually socialists etc. The semantics don't matter.

I think the problem we have had over the past couple of decades is that we have lost sight of the fact that we run the country, not the government. We got lazy. That is dangerous because a lot of the lazies have suddenly woken up and found that someone's trying to steal the ground out from under them. It's not about left or right to me, it's about government.

And right here is where you and I disagree. Socialist, Marxist and Communist are terms with specific meanings, they are not interchangeable nor synonyms for the belief there are things government is best suited to do.

We can disagree on whether government or private sector is better suited to do certain things - or which one is to be trusted less for that matter. It's about two competing schools of thought over who should do what and how it should be accomplished. We can also disagree over foreign policy and when we should or should not act in certain ways in order to pursue our interests. None of that makes us enemies - or shouldn't. It makes us opponents in an ongoing debate that will probably last longer than either of us is alive. And that's exactly the way it should be.

I agree a lot of people have been apathetic or lazy as you call it, and it's more than time for people to wake up and take control of what's going on. But a lot of interest and passion with a lack of understanding is just as dangerous as the apathy - if not more so IMO. It just makes me sad when I see so much hate and so many baseless acusations getting thrown around on both sides with so little understanding of what it's really about or willingness to listen to what the other guy thinks.

Just my two cents, fwiw. I don't exactly expect the usual suspects will listen to me either.

 

[California Girl]

You're right about me, but even though I'm not in line with the Progressives I don't believe they are supportive of some sort of Communist dictatorship out to censor all opposition. That would be laughable if I didn't suspect he actually believes it.

You know, the first step to really understanding your own argument is to understand that of your opponent. Some of you folks on the right are pretty good about it, hyperbole aside. But quite a few I suspect actually believe the straw men are real. And that goes for some on both sides. That's sad.

See, you and I are polls apart on a lot of issues - probably not as many as we both might think though. I think the progressives don't like to think of themselves as 'socialist' or 'marxist' or 'communist' but, they believe that the government is responsible for 'caring' for its people. Therefore, they are actually socialists etc. The semantics don't matter.

I think the problem we have had over the past couple of decades is that we have lost sight of the fact that we run the country, not the government. We got lazy. That is dangerous because a lot of the lazies have suddenly woken up and found that someone's trying to steal the ground out from under them. It's not about left or right to me, it's about government.

And right here is where you and I disagree. Socialist, Marxist and Communist are terms with specific meanings, they are not interchangeable nor synonyms for the belief there are things government is best suited to do.

We can disagree on whether government or private sector is better suited to do certain things - or which one is to be trusted less for that matter. It's about two competing schools of thought over who should do what and how it should be accomplished. We can also disagree over foreign policy and when we should or should not act in certain ways in order to pursue our interests. None of that makes us enemies - or shouldn't. It makes us opponents in an ongoing debate that will probably last longer than either of us is alive. And that's exactly the way it should be.

I agree a lot of people have been apathetic or lazy as you call it, and it's more than time for people to wake up and take control of what's going on. But a lot of interest and passion with a lack of understanding is just as dangerous as the apathy - if not more so IMO. It just makes me sad when I see so much hate and so many baseless acusations getting thrown around on both sides with so little understanding of what it's really about or willingness to listen to what the other guy thinks.

Just my two cents, fwiw. I don't exactly expect the usual suspects will listen to me either.

I view them all as 'totalitarianism' because, whether they be socialist, marxist, or communist, that is the outcome - I don't mean an extreme 'totalitarian' state, I mean something more like Europe - where governments have far more control over its citizens. We were founded as an alternative to that way. Our way is the way of a free people. Yea, that makes things harder for us. It also makes things much better. We should be able to live our lives without being told how to live it by some faceless idiot in DC.

I am for health care reform, I am against handing control for health care to government. Nowhere with a single payer system works any better than our system... I know we can all quote figures to back up our own argument but the fact is that their systems only look better because we think they are.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I'd like to consider myself fairly liberal, but then that is mostly because I lack respect for the alternative.

For example, what's with this "Without a vote nonsense?" I mean, what rock were you under throughout 2008 when Obama made it his campaign's cornerstone? Now I didn't vote for Obama because I had enough of Washington's running up the debt with Bush's expanded healthcare entitlements. But as I said, I simply prefer to consider myself liberal.

You say you lost your best friend in Baghdad. Well I couldn't vote for McCain because concerning all those that voted for that war, I don't consider their hands all that much cleaner than those of bin Laden. I was particularly upset with Bush, from the start it seemed to me he was backtracking from the statement made during the 2000 debate when he said he would be careful about nation building. I think we need to get back to what the Constitution says about war. My only relief in seeing Obama win was that at least I had heard he voted against Bush on Iraq.

Obama voted against the Iraq war? Wow. That must have been fraudulent. Obama wasn't even a ******* Senator at the time of the Iraq war vote, you dumbass. However, at the time of the vote (2002) he did comment that his position was 'not that different to that of the President' (that President being George Bush).

I'm glad you didn't vote.

Can you source that quote from 2002?