Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:24 pm, MagneticEnergy wrote:
You mean jump to conclusions why President Obama has ingnored members
of Congress who happen to be Republicans, in his new "era of post-
partisanship" and have officially asked three times since July to have
an appointment with the President to discuss heath care,




You need to pay attention.

Between his inauguration and late April the President had several
meetings with Republikkkon members of Congress regardihg health care
and after every meeting, they have trooped out of the White House,
stood in front of the microphones, and announced their opposition.

Faced with this response from the Party of No, he had no recourse but
to push ahead.



Why would they want to talk to Obama about legislation that he has not
been personally involved in? The insurance reform has been a
Legislative situation, not Executive.

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 05:40:01 -0800, dave puked:

Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names wrote:
On Nov 6, 8:24 pm, MagneticEnergy wrote:
You mean jump to conclusions why President Obama has ingnored members
of Congress who happen to be Republicans, in his new "era of post-
partisanship" and have officially asked three times since July to have
an appointment with the President to discuss heath care,




You need to pay attention.

Between his inauguration and late April the President had several
meetings with Republikkkon members of Congress regardihg health care
and after every meeting, they have trooped out of the White House,
stood in front of the microphones, and announced their opposition.

Faced with this response from the Party of No, he had no recourse but
to push ahead.



Why would they want to talk to Obama about legislation that he has not
been personally involved in? The insurance reform has been a
Legislative situation, not Executive.

Then Obama lied when around three months ago he was going to take a
proactive role in the bill.

And why would Obama **** away millions of dollars in hard earned
taxpayer money jetting across the country to campaign for a bill that
he hasn't been personally involved in?

I can understand you positioning yourself to start distancing Obama
from this ridiculous bill, but it will never happen.
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

lab~rat :-) wrote:

And why would Obama **** away millions of dollars in hard earned
taxpayer money jetting across the country to campaign for a bill that
he hasn't been personally involved in?

I can understand you positioning yourself to start distancing Obama
from this ridiculous bill, but it will never happen.
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

His "distance" (until very recently) from this legislation has been
widely decried by the progressives. The president doesn't need me to
help him with his image. I speak from a position of journalistic
neutrality on this one.

A supposedly insured family losing their life savings and home due to an
illness is ridiculous. Trying to do something about that is not.

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 07:31:42 -0800, dave puked:

lab~rat :-) wrote:

And why would Obama **** away millions of dollars in hard earned
taxpayer money jetting across the country to campaign for a bill that
he hasn't been personally involved in?

I can understand you positioning yourself to start distancing Obama
from this ridiculous bill, but it will never happen.
--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

His "distance" (until very recently) from this legislation has been
widely decried by the progressives. The president doesn't need me to
help him with his image. I speak from a position of journalistic
neutrality on this one.

A supposedly insured family losing their life savings and home due to an
illness is ridiculous.

Are you saying that there should be a law that people have medical
insurance before they have a flat screen, an X-Box and a host of other
goofy toys?

Trying to do something about that is not.


--
lab~rat :-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

lab~rat :-) wrote:


A supposedly insured family losing their life savings and home due to an
illness is ridiculous.

Are you saying that there should be a law that people have medical
insurance before they have a flat screen, an X-Box and a host of other
goofy toys?

People with insurance are still getting wiped-out by disease.

Blame the victim; great strategy. It's that kind of thinking that made
us what we are today.

Health freedom for all Americans!

On Nov 11, 7:31*am, dave wrote:
lab~rat :-) wrote:
And why would Obama **** away millions of dollars in hard earned
taxpayer money jetting across the country to campaign for a bill that
he hasn't been personally involved in?

I can understand you positioning yourself to start distancing Obama
from this ridiculous bill, but it will never happen.
--
lab~rat *:-)
Do you want polite or do you want sincere?

His "distance" (until very recently) from this legislation has been
widely decried by the progressives. The president doesn't need me to
help him with his image. *I speak from a position of journalistic
neutrality on this one.

- A supposedly insured family losing their
- life savings and home due to an illness is
- ridiculous.
- Trying to do something about that is not.

-but- Killing the Patient [Taxpayer] is NOT the Answer [.]

"Sick Around the World" hosted by T.R. Reid
on PBS for Health Care That Really Cares©
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...8cbbeb31a6e20f

RHF wrote:

.
The "Costs" of Nancy Pelosi's Obama-Care© Bill :
45% Top Tax Rates Coming & More Taxes Too
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.r...b85834a0d690b7
.

45% is fair for people who make millions.