Wow, the Left really turning on Obama

[JoeB131]

[

We have been over this before...you were completely squashed once...do you need to be embarrassed again?

Someone misinformed DogStyle that repetition is argument, and eventually, people just tire of arguing back.

Or the Mods lock the thread.

 

[kaz]

Who was the guy who shit canned you for sucking? I thought he was the Mormon you hated so much.

Actually, he was a business Republican who had nothing but contempt for religous nuts. He thought Romney would be a good President because he would **** over "those union guys".

All benefit, no responsibility, sending your bills to other people. Um...that's you, Homey.

Uh, no. I pay my taxes, I serve in the military, I vote. And I paid for top of the line insurance when I worked, and they burned me when I got sick

Which means- just let the government run it because the private sector is too greedy.

Right, people who earn money are greedy, people who take it and spend it are generous. Gotcha.

And you made up the union quote. No one would say that about Romney.

 

[kaz]

Who was the guy who shit canned you for sucking? I thought he was the Mormon you hated so much.

Actually, he was a business Republican who had nothing but contempt for religous nuts. He thought Romney would be a good President because he would **** over "those union guys".

All benefit, no responsibility, sending your bills to other people. Um...that's you, Homey.

Uh, no. I pay my taxes, I serve in the military, I vote. And I paid for top of the line insurance when I worked, and they burned me when I got sick

Which means- just let the government run it because the private sector is too greedy.

You know what I find rather sad, Joey? That you naively think government is the answer to your getting "burned" in life. Do you have a fall back position ready when that doesn't work out? I ask that because any rational person who has dealt with the "government" quickly comes to the conclusion that if you want it to take twice as long and cost three times as much...you let the government do it!

Somehow you haven't come to that conclusion yet...I wonder what you're going to do when it dawns on you that people in government care more about themselves than they do about the average citizen?

Exactly,

I wanted the troops to leave. I said that. You are saying you wanted them to stay, but they couldn't becasue W didn't do Obama's job for him. You people are unreal.

Bush DID negotiate the SOFA before he left office

Exactly, years earlier. Obama was President when we left, how did he not revisit the agreement?

He DID revisit the agreement...

Unlike Bush, Obama would not sign a SOFA that would expose our sons and daughters to Iraqi tribunals...

So Obama got the same agreement as W, and you're criticizing W for not getting a better agreement, but you're OK with Obama not getting a better agreement. Doesn't the smell of your hypocrisy reek even to you?

Hello? Do you have a serious cognitive illness? You continue to be unable to follow along on even the most simple of facts. Why is that kaz??

I will try to make it as simple as possible for you...

a) Bush signed a SOFA that would expose our sons and daughters to Iraqi tribunals...

b) Obama WOULD NOT SIGN an agreement that expose our sons and daughters to Iraqi tribunals...

c) I applaud Obama for NOT signing...

You skipped the step that is the topic of the discussion:

d) You criticize W for not being able to negotiate a deal that you praise Obama for not being ale to negotiate.

Kool-aid drinking leftist to the end.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Right, people who earn money are greedy, people who take it and spend it are generous. Gotcha.

And you made up the union quote. No one would say that about Romney.

You should have heard my ex-boss go on about "union guys". Especially when he was firing long term employees because these new waifs from College would work for peanuts in 2007. "Well, thank god I don't have to deal with a union."

RIght. Because he was making such great decisions on his own. That's why we lost 70% of our business in one year and he had to let go of 60% of his employees before his bosses shitcanned him.

 

[kaz]

Frankly, whenever I've dealt with government agencies, I've generally had good experiences.

If the Government takes "twice as long and costs three times as much", then why is Medicare so much more cost efficient than Private Insurance. Why does Medicare have a much higher user satisfaction rating than private insurance?

Every other industrialized democracy except ours has a Single Payer or Government sponsored universal health care.

The uniformly spend less, they uniformly have a higher life expectency an they uniformly have lower infant mortality rates.

Baa, baa, baa... That's classic. Unbelievable.

 

[Bfgrn]

Who was the guy who shit canned you for sucking? I thought he was the Mormon you hated so much.

Actually, he was a business Republican who had nothing but contempt for religous nuts. He thought Romney would be a good President because he would **** over "those union guys".

All benefit, no responsibility, sending your bills to other people. Um...that's you, Homey.

Uh, no. I pay my taxes, I serve in the military, I vote. And I paid for top of the line insurance when I worked, and they burned me when I got sick

Which means- just let the government run it because the private sector is too greedy.

You know what I find rather sad, Joey? That you naively think government is the answer to your getting "burned" in life. Do you have a fall back position ready when that doesn't work out? I ask that because any rational person who has dealt with the "government" quickly comes to the conclusion that if you want it to take twice as long and cost three times as much...you let the government do it!

Somehow you haven't come to that conclusion yet...I wonder what you're going to do when it dawns on you that people in government care more about themselves than they do about the average citizen?

Exactly,

Bush DID negotiate the SOFA before he left office

Exactly, years earlier. Obama was President when we left, how did he not revisit the agreement?

He DID revisit the agreement...

Unlike Bush, Obama would not sign a SOFA that would expose our sons and daughters to Iraqi tribunals...

So Obama got the same agreement as W, and you're criticizing W for not getting a better agreement, but you're OK with Obama not getting a better agreement. Doesn't the smell of your hypocrisy reek even to you?

Hello? Do you have a serious cognitive illness? You continue to be unable to follow along on even the most simple of facts. Why is that kaz??

I will try to make it as simple as possible for you...

a) Bush signed a SOFA that would expose our sons and daughters to Iraqi tribunals...

b) Obama WOULD NOT SIGN an agreement that expose our sons and daughters to Iraqi tribunals...

c) I applaud Obama for NOT signing...

You skipped the step that is the topic of the discussion:

d) You criticize W for not being able to negotiate a deal that you praise Obama for not being ale to negotiate.

Kool-aid drinking leftist to the end.

No, that is what YOU want to funnel this into. Neither president could negotiate a deal that would provide immunity for our troops. The ONLY difference...Bush SIGNED, Obama DIDN'T

 

[kaz]

[

Right, people who earn money are greedy, people who take it and spend it are generous. Gotcha.

And you made up the union quote. No one would say that about Romney.

You should have heard my ex-boss go on about "union guys". Especially when he was firing long term employees because these new waifs from College would work for peanuts in 2007. "Well, thank god I don't have to deal with a union."

RIght. Because he was making such great decisions on his own. That's why we lost 70% of our business in one year and he had to let go of 60% of his employees before his bosses shitcanned him.

I didn't say your old boss didn't hate unions, I said he didn't say that about Romney.

And you're just a liar.

- You keep saying they fired you over medical costs. The only way that would happen is if you worked for a micro company.

- Now he let go of 60% of his employees before his bosses fired him. That would have to be a bigger company than your claim of medical costs.

BTW, your math doesn't work. If he lost 70% of his revenue, then letting go of 60% of his employees wouldn't work because that's only fixed cost. He would be losing massive money and be fired for sure, probably your division would be shut down.

Also, you thought a six figure job was a lot of money yet claim you made him money hand over fist I believe you put it. You can't even keep your own story straight.

In all seriousness, probably the #1 reason he fired you was your bad attitude.

 

[kaz]

Who was the guy who shit canned you for sucking? I thought he was the Mormon you hated so much.

Actually, he was a business Republican who had nothing but contempt for religous nuts. He thought Romney would be a good President because he would **** over "those union guys".

All benefit, no responsibility, sending your bills to other people. Um...that's you, Homey.

Uh, no. I pay my taxes, I serve in the military, I vote. And I paid for top of the line insurance when I worked, and they burned me when I got sick

Which means- just let the government run it because the private sector is too greedy.

You know what I find rather sad, Joey? That you naively think government is the answer to your getting "burned" in life. Do you have a fall back position ready when that doesn't work out? I ask that because any rational person who has dealt with the "government" quickly comes to the conclusion that if you want it to take twice as long and cost three times as much...you let the government do it!

Somehow you haven't come to that conclusion yet...I wonder what you're going to do when it dawns on you that people in government care more about themselves than they do about the average citizen?

Exactly,

Exactly, years earlier. Obama was President when we left, how did he not revisit the agreement?

He DID revisit the agreement...

Unlike Bush, Obama would not sign a SOFA that would expose our sons and daughters to Iraqi tribunals...

So Obama got the same agreement as W, and you're criticizing W for not getting a better agreement, but you're OK with Obama not getting a better agreement. Doesn't the smell of your hypocrisy reek even to you?

Hello? Do you have a serious cognitive illness? You continue to be unable to follow along on even the most simple of facts. Why is that kaz??

I will try to make it as simple as possible for you...

a) Bush signed a SOFA that would expose our sons and daughters to Iraqi tribunals...

b) Obama WOULD NOT SIGN an agreement that expose our sons and daughters to Iraqi tribunals...

c) I applaud Obama for NOT signing...

You skipped the step that is the topic of the discussion:

d) You criticize W for not being able to negotiate a deal that you praise Obama for not being ale to negotiate.

Kool-aid drinking leftist to the end.

No, that is what YOU want to funnel this into. Neither president could negotiate a deal that would provide immunity for our troops. The ONLY difference...Bush SIGNED, Obama DIDN'T

Neither removed the troops subjecting them to liability.

 

[Bfgrn]

Frankly, whenever I've dealt with government agencies, I've generally had good experiences.

If the Government takes "twice as long and costs three times as much", then why is Medicare so much more cost efficient than Private Insurance. Why does Medicare have a much higher user satisfaction rating than private insurance?

Every other industrialized democracy except ours has a Single Payer or Government sponsored universal health care.

The uniformly spend less, they uniformly have a higher life expectency an they uniformly have lower infant mortality rates.

Baa, baa, baa... That's classic. Unbelievable.

Translation, Joe used words that were too big...

 

[JoeB131]

[

Baa, baa, baa... That's classic. Unbelievable.

Well, I don't go into government offices to get business done dressed like this..

And whining about "big gummit taking my freedoms." I imagine the reason most of you have a hard time is you go into the office copping an attitude.

I go in, tell them what I need done, and I usually get it.

Last visit to the DMV- Took less than six minutes from the time I walked in the door to the time I walked out with a new license.

 

[kaz]

Frankly, whenever I've dealt with government agencies, I've generally had good experiences.

If the Government takes "twice as long and costs three times as much", then why is Medicare so much more cost efficient than Private Insurance. Why does Medicare have a much higher user satisfaction rating than private insurance?

Every other industrialized democracy except ours has a Single Payer or Government sponsored universal health care.

The uniformly spend less, they uniformly have a higher life expectency an they uniformly have lower infant mortality rates.

Baa, baa, baa... That's classic. Unbelievable.

Translation, Joe used words that were too big...

Government is competent and efficient? You two sheep are unreal.

 

[kaz]

[

Baa, baa, baa... That's classic. Unbelievable.

Well, I don't go into government offices to get business done dressed like this..

And whining about "big gummit taking my freedoms." I imagine the reason most of you have a hard time is you go into the office copping an attitude.

I go in, tell them what I need done, and I usually get it.

Last visit to the DMV- Took less than six minutes from the time I walked in the door to the time I walked out with a new license.

I'm sorry I made you cry, here's a hankie.

 

[Rotagilla]

Frankly, whenever I've dealt with government agencies, I've generally had good experiences.

If the Government takes "twice as long and costs three times as much", then why is Medicare so much more cost efficient than Private Insurance. Why does Medicare have a much higher user satisfaction rating than private insurance?

Every other industrialized democracy except ours has a Single Payer or Government sponsored universal health care.

The uniformly spend less, they uniformly have a higher life expectency an they uniformly have lower infant mortality rates.

Baa, baa, baa... That's classic. Unbelievable.

Translation, Joe used words that were too big...

Government is competent and efficient?

Only when "their" party is in office...

 

[JoeB131]

[Q
I'm sorry I made you cry, here's a hankie.

Naw, Dude, those were tears of laughter. Libertarians are always hilarious, living off those of us doing the hard work of building a civil society while they act like a bunch of crackpots.

 

[kaz]

[Q
I'm sorry I made you cry, here's a hankie.

Naw, Dude, those were tears of laughter. Libertarians are always hilarious, living off those of us doing the hard work of building a civil society while they act like a bunch of crackpots.

You live off my work. You keep repeating that strawman, what do I want that I don't want to pay for? You like making the claim, but like your pants it's empty.

 

[EconChick]

Who was the guy who shit canned you for sucking? I thought he was the Mormon you hated so much.

Actually, he was a business Republican who had nothing but contempt for religous nuts. He thought Romney would be a good President because he would **** over "those union guys".

All benefit, no responsibility, sending your bills to other people. Um...that's you, Homey.

Uh, no. I pay my taxes, I serve in the military, I vote. And I paid for top of the line insurance when I worked, and they burned me when I got sick

Which means- just let the government run it because the private sector is too greedy.

You know what I find rather sad, Joey? That you naively think government is the answer to your getting "burned" in life. Do you have a fall back position ready when that doesn't work out? I ask that because any rational person who has dealt with the "government" quickly comes to the conclusion that if you want it to take twice as long and cost three times as much...you let the government do it!

Somehow you haven't come to that conclusion yet...I wonder what you're going to do when it dawns on you that people in government care more about themselves than they do about the average citizen?

Exactly,

Exactly, years earlier. Obama was President when we left, how did he not revisit the agreement?

He DID revisit the agreement...

Unlike Bush, Obama would not sign a SOFA that would expose our sons and daughters to Iraqi tribunals...

So Obama got the same agreement as W, and you're criticizing W for not getting a better agreement, but you're OK with Obama not getting a better agreement. Doesn't the smell of your hypocrisy reek even to you?

Hello? Do you have a serious cognitive illness? You continue to be unable to follow along on even the most simple of facts. Why is that kaz??

I will try to make it as simple as possible for you...

a) Bush signed a SOFA that would expose our sons and daughters to Iraqi tribunals...

b) Obama WOULD NOT SIGN an agreement that expose our sons and daughters to Iraqi tribunals...

c) I applaud Obama for NOT signing...

You skipped the step that is the topic of the discussion:

d) You criticize W for not being able to negotiate a deal that you praise Obama for not being ale to negotiate.

Kool-aid drinking leftist to the end.

No, that is what YOU want to funnel this into. Neither president could negotiate a deal that would provide immunity for our troops. The ONLY difference...Bush SIGNED, Obama DIDN'T

You're kidding me. As someone that actually spent a lot of time in Iraq negotiating with Iraqis, I put this topic to rest a long time ago. Then came Panetta, Ambassador Crocker, Amb Hill, Gates, and several generals that said the same thing I can be seen saying in hundreds of posts.

It's funny how some liberal hack wants to try to resurrect a dead argument. But just as a reminder.....the SOFA was worded in a way to satisfy Iraqi "domestic consumption" while also protecting our troops AND our contractors from prosecution.

I can't help so many of you libs wreak of idiocy when it comes to how negotiations work.

 

[Oldstyle]

Exactly, years earlier. Obama was President when we left, how did he not revisit the agreement?

He DID revisit the agreement...

Unlike Bush, Obama would not sign a SOFA that would expose our sons and daughters to Iraqi tribunals...

You know what's amusing, Bfgrn? You actually buy the Obama story that he tried to get a new Status of Forces Agreement!

I believe the Obama administration tried to get a SOFA, but the main thrust came from the pentagon. I am vehemently opposed to sending in American forces unless they are PART of a coalition of MANY other nations.

I believe President Obama shares that view.


"And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.”
President John F. Kennedy

And yet Kennedy tried to impose that will in Cuba and in Vietnam? Obviously JFK's "speeches" weren't something he was all that serious about?

We have been over this before...you were completely squashed once...do you need to be embarrassed again?

So Kennedy DIDN'T try and impose American will in Cuba and Vietnam? Enlighten me, Bfgrn!

 

[Oldstyle]

The idea that one party is "better" or "different" than the other one...
you've been duped...

There is no question one party is better than the other. It just depends on who you are. There is an old axiom: the only people who vote Republican are either millionaires or suckers.

You and your ilk are the sucker class...

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948

So tell me how the present Progressive Administration has "helped" America's Middle Class, Bfgrn? The poor have been given more entitlements. The rich have used a Quantitative Easing fueled stock market bubble to get much richer. What has the Obama Administration done for the Middle Class that they constantly declare they are "fighting" for?

I don't consider this administration as very 'progressive'. It can only be labeled as more progressive that the corporatocracy/plutocracy platform of the GOP. But Genghis Khan was more progressive than today's GOP.

It was clear from the beginning that Obama was no JFK...progressives were shut out of the health care debate.

Wow, let me get this straight...you think Kennedy was more of a Progressive than Obama? Really? You think that the guy who was in favor of tax cuts to stimulate the economy was more of a progressive than the guy who's answer to everything is to raise taxes? Your take on history and the people in it get's more amusing with every passing day!

 

[Oldstyle]

I notice that you avoided my question about what this Administration has done to help the American Middle Class, Bfgrn. Why is that? Surely after six years of Barack Obama "fighting" for the Middle Class there should be a whole HOST of things that he's done that have made their lives better?

 

[Oldstyle]

[

You know what I find rather sad, Joey? That you naively think government is the answer to your getting "burned" in life. Do you have a fall back position ready when that doesn't work out? I ask that because any rational person who has dealt with the "government" quickly comes to the conclusion that if you want it to take twice as long and cost three times as much...you let the government do it!

Somehow you haven't come to that conclusion yet...I wonder what you're going to do when it dawns on you that people in government care more about themselves than they do about the average citizen?

I don't know, that's never been my experience.

When I was in the Army, it was because I wanted to defend my country and look out for the troops in my charge when I was an NCO. Frankly, whenever I've dealt with government agencies, I've generally had good experiences.

If the Government takes "twice as long and costs three times as much", then why is Medicare so much more cost efficient than Private Insurance. Why does Medicare have a much higher user satisfaction rating than private insurance?

Every other industrialized democracy except ours has a Single Payer or Government sponsored universal health care.

The uniformly spend less, they uniformly have a higher life expectency an they uniformly have lower infant mortality rates.

What they don't have is Ed Hanaway getting Nine Figures to retire after he did shit like let Nataline Sarkisyan die by denying her a liver transplant her doctor's said she needed.

You were in the military and thought that it was an efficient organization, Joey? Really? This is the US military we're talking about?