I guess I'm what you might call a leftnutbagger. Ijust want America to stop dropping bombs on brown people overseas. But dropping bombs on people is ok with some people if The dropper is in tthe correct party.

Jeanette said:

Ijust want America to stop dropping bombs on brown people overseas.

Right there with you. I've been supporting bloggers like Jeremy Scahill who are the few people questioning the Obama's continued feeding of the military-industrial complex. The sad, and horrible reality, is that we can take small comfort knowing less bombs are being dropped than if neo-cons were behind the wheel. Which does not in anyway excusing the bombings, but it's what we've got for now. I maintain hope that this administration will take steps to remedy the situation, but believe liberal bloggers should continue holding his feet to the fire and pointing out mis-steps.

Doesn't all this inner-party vitriol -- Liberals vs Angry Progressives With Growly-Faces Roar! vs Leftnutbaggers -- miss the larger point that Obama is playing to the crucial Independent bloc until the midterms shake out and he can see where the Mere Fact Of Himself As President has put the country? The clear lesson in Clinton's first term was that the FACT of a Democrat -- even so milquetoast a centrist as Bill -- in the White House terrified Whitey to a Congressional routing in the midterms, elevating Newt Gingrich and kicking off years and years of movement conservatism whose only unifying message was "Fuck Bill Clinton." Obama badly needs to avoid this and the middle ground right now is all Independents, all the time.

So I give the Obama Administration a break for not going All Geigh from go or yanking out of these wars until it's certain where the Middle is going to take us in 2010, as a prelude to 2012. If Honkytown Bubba Boy Bill Clinton had Whitey terrified and the Right Wing Smear Machine in full gear, Obama's black ass has no chance of holding the tenuous Middle with a far-Left agenda. We need to remember just how incendiary the mere FACT of Obama is to much of the nation, regardless of his actual policies.

Obama did not campaign on stopping the MIC, nor did he promise to make liberal idealists happy. He campaigned on changing the way we all perceive our political system.

"Change" comes from within.

Some people have to accept reality. I'm not saying that we need to become complacent and shirk our borderline self-righteous inklings. I'm saying some of us need to understand that there's a lot of minutia left unfinished, undisturbed, or plain unfettered last century, and we've yet to comprehend the various political landmines left by the previous administration. Keeping pressure up is all well and good, but do make sure you're doing it for all the right reasons. We don't want to talk ourselves out of an enviable position.

It seems to me that some of us are being so overtly vocal because the occupant in the WH has expressed an eager willingness to observe differing points of view. Think on the alternative to President Obama and ease up just a little.

Oh, there will be no "Palin presidency." EVER!!!

I say that as an admirer of the woman away from the demented policies she's embraced, as well as her hunger for graft and such. She's gone, baby, GONE!!!

Those Republicons in the various surveys (all of which convince me myself of nothing) are delirious with boredom and answering out of their assholes. They'll vote for ANY Republicon that runs in the next election, or apathy will get the better of them and they'll stay home, further ensuring that BHO is a two-termer. Don't believe the media swine hype!

Lexaburn said:

Oh, there will be no "Palin presidency." EVER!!!
I say that as an admirer of the woman away from the demented policies she's embraced, as well as her hunger for graft and such. She's gone, baby, GONE!!!

In the name of the spaghetti monster's Parmesan, I hope you're right.

I too can't possibly imagine Palin ever convincing the American people she has what it takes. No matter how the republicans try to spin it, she derailed McCain's candidacy to the point where people actually saw Obama as the safe choice. In the heat of a national campaign, she would never last. She's a total and complete nonstop scandal. I guarantee if she wins the nomination, there will be actual serious discussion among republicans and in the press, of getting her to bow out so they can replace her. She is such a sideshow. She will never ever ever be our president.

AMEN Redmond! Well and passionately said. the "new" left has to be SMARTER. Not caving into technocratic way of thinking, but pragmatic and tactical. We need to "dance with the one that brung ya" for a bit and do-si-do them into our corner of the ballroom; not abandon them because they stepped on our feet a couple of times. THE LEFT CANNOT BE PURISTS OR WE'RE AS DUMB AS THE TEABAGGERS--EXCEPT WE ARE EVEN SMALLER. No we should not just accept cop-outs and buy into the "this is the best compromise I can do" that Dems have been giving us for YEARS; but you CLEARLY outlined what is at stake . . .Pres Palin and a Teabagger cabinet (or Congress) will make us WISH we had Bush/Cheney back.

And the King James version and a Tylenol was CLASSIC--LOL

And as far as Palin not being able to convince enough people:
1) as a former religious right and as someone who's entire family are Teabaggers . . . let me assure you she can because . . .
2) all it takes is her side to be fired up and our side to be disillusioned and the moderate center to not care . . .

Sadly though, as bad a sBush was I fear it might just take a Palin disaster to really fix our country from our addiction to ignorance, fear-mongering and bullshit wrapped in red, white and blue!

Hey- if George Bush was elected TWICE why does anyone think Palin cannot be elected or at least the nominee?

Just sayin'. The woman is batshit out of her mind---just like the teabaggers who love her. They have 2 years-look how she changed D23 in NY.

Scares the hell out of me.

At least one analyst (can't remember who, can't be arsed to find out) made a convincing argument that Obama won because the Rs and the middle-aged-and-older white folks who vote Republican didn't turn out in their usual numbers; had they done so, we'd be ten months into President McCain's first term (and probably at war with Iran). If they do so in 2012, we get another R in the White House.

I fear Chad Burns is right: as horrifying a thought as it may be, President Palin is a distinct possibility.

Holy Crap, let's get realistic. The Republicans are all over the place right now chasing their own tails. They're going to get their act together and put Palin up for the nod? Get it straight, Palin came way out of right field as a complete unknown for the VP nod in 08. Being an unknown was all she had going for her. The right wing tried to frame a narrative around her as being a no nonsense gal looking out for Joe-six-pack, but she was an incompetent who couldn't keep the charade going long enough because the notoriety got to her.

Yeah, whack jobs might thing she's hot stuff and all leader like dontchya know, but most of America now knows she's dumb as a box of rocks with just about as much experience seeing as how she walked out on her job as governor to be a full time Facebook poster type person.

My prediction? Big money will find a much more suitable candidate to run on the Republican ticket. Oh that person will in the bag just as much as any other big name right wing politician, but they'll be less dumb with a smidge more credibility.

Let's remember, Bush didn't actually beat Gore. And he barely beat Kerry while the country was still reeling from 9/11 and Bush managed to convince just enough voters that Kerry couldn't keep us safe. Besides, Bush was seen by independents as a moderate, compassionate conservative whose dad had been president. Palin is a joke. She will have to completely remake her image to be considered viable, and she's just not smart enough or disciplined enough to do so. Plus, I doubt she even wants the responsibility.

Whoever said poor turnout affected the 08 election has selective memory. Obama won by at least a 9% margin in states adding up to 270 electoral votes. To make up that margin, tens of millions of conservatives, most of whom loved Sarah Palin and feared Obama as a Muslim terrorist, would've had to sit out. Impossible.

What is amazing me is the point that the media is trying to make about how Obama's "first year" has turned out. It is barely 10 + months since the inauguration. In my math books that does not make a year. Doesn't anybody know how to do any fucking math the right way anymore, or is it just easier to flap your lips and make people believe what you are saying is valid. It's like when you see something priced at $99.99 and you actually say that it is only 90 something bucks. I wish that the media would get their heads and fingers out of their asses and start worrying about real problems that we face.

I refuse to pass judgment on an Obama Presidency so early in the game. Sure there are things that I like and don't like, but I choose to sit back and observe for a while before I start going ape shit.

I keep saying that the propangandist MSM machine is daily undermining Obama's presidency all the flippin' time!
Check it out.... They gloss over what he achieves, skirting the issue, but stay on any negative topic beating it like a dead horse!
And the progressives are falling into the trap,as they behave as the wingnuts, in that they choose to behave likefickle,impatient,transient,children with a right for their demands to be fed.
Look out tonight for the way they skew the results and take their cable pundit panellists and thoughts oh so seriously!
I swear that is why America will have a hard time finding its way. Too many dissenting voices piling on, while someone is trying to achieve and do something!

Willpen, you're being too kind, it's about 9 1/2 months, not 10+, which makes your point even more valid. He's not even 20% of the way through his first term.

By all means, we should not be critical of Obama because it's possible that Sarah Palin might get the Republican nomination. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the insight.

Hey Rushmond,

Why do you hate the left?

Arianna wrote a perfectly articulate piece today. So did Bill Maher. Both asked the President to live up to what he promised in his campaign.

Neither mentioned "not firing an organic utopia of free marijuana and health care out of his armpits on Day 1" - which is a Fox News characterization of the left if I've ever heard one.

You're a weak, self hating 'leftist' who is afraid to ask for anything better. Pathetic, man.

Lee:

Here's Bill Maher's piece that you're not going to bother to link to because it's actually pretty even-keeled. Which is surprising coming from Maher.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/is-this-as-good-as-it-get_b_343144.html

He also ends on this note:

That said, I do not forget that if the election had gone the other way, we'd right now have a barter economy and be at war with Honduras.

Which is all I'm saying. We could very quickly be knocked back into a GOP quagmire if we don't keep our shit together.

But go ahead and interpret that as my loathing of the left. I want lots of things from this President, but that doesn't mean I'm going to stamp my feet and start campaigning against him because he didn't give me my treats NOW!

You started your post with an out-an-out lie about what criticism of Obama is about. Glad you linked to it - link to Arianna's, too.

It's only surprising because this blog has almost daily attacks on any criticism of the President and his policies that make it point to mischaracterize them.

Then you go on to lie some more " I'm going to stamp my feet and start campaigning against him because he didn't give me my treats NOW!"

You know who complained about got all foot stampy before Obama was even in office? Bob Cesca, about Rick Warren. And I was 'even keeled' - and still attacked. Understandable I gueess because it's not my name on the blog, yet setll ironic.

Of COURSE we're better off with Obama than McCain. But you spend you time lying about the legitimate criticism of Obama, acting as though it's childish to have a problem with him breaking campaign promises that related to the core principles he ran on.

Lee is in overkill..as per usual! Need I say more???!!
On another note,instead of trying to work her way all around the cable tv, Arianna needs to see to about her business and find out why Huffpo has gone the way of a turn off tabloid rag!
And in real time, like now, the normally pseudo funny Bill Maher has become the biggest whinger ..just bitching,bitching!

Lee:

I'm not saying it's childish. I'm saying it's DANGEROUS for MoveOn.org and the far left to threaten to sit home in 2012, or just as bad, vote for third party candidates. The man is 9 1/2 months into his presidency and you're ready to toss him overboard because he's not moving fast enough on perceived campaign promises. Again, there are things I want (Geithner gone, Wall St. prosecutions, troops out of Afghanistan, DADT repealed, etc.) but I'm letting the man work his way through the clusterfuck he inherited.

And here's Arianna's Post which I didn't comment on because, unlike Maher's, I honestly haven't read it:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/obama-one-year-later-the_b_343209.html

Want overkill? Someone needs to explain mandates to this guy...he obviously doesn't get it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7N_JtuwZtOo

no one's saying don't criticize the president, Lee. In fact, I think if you look at the posts that you claim attack any criticism of the president, most or all of those posts will state that there are several things about the Obama administration that that poster doesn't like. we're not saying don't criticize, we're saying criticize constructively.

Mandates! Mandates! Mandates! Look over there! Mandates! See 'em? Mandates! Let's avoid substance and have an argument over semantics! MANDATES!

I'm personally frustrated with a lack of action on certain areas of policy... but I do understand that there is a tactful way to approach the topic, rather than threatening to jump ship 9 months into the administration.

Can someone answer me just one question?

Obama campaigned on escalating in Afghanistan. Why the sudden calls to pull out?

I'm not interested in the merits of staying or going here, I'm just honestly curious why people seem to think pulling out was ever on the agenda, when quite the opposite is the case.

Also, if you are mad about mandates, I'm not attacking you. I understand your anger and I'm not saying it's not justified. But it's all right to let your anger go, too. It doesn't mean surrender, it doesn't mean giving up the struggle for healthcare reform.

and once again you've neglected mentioning subsidies for those who can't afford to get insurance. For some, it will amount to low cost healthcare. Yet you'd rather see what is emerging as the plan fail because it's not everything you want

Mandates aren't semantics.

It's a specific policy that Candidate Obama opposed because it's bad policy.

Bob made it semantics by equivocating on what the word 'mandate' means. But the health care bill that the House introduce is bad for the reasons Barack Obama explains in that video.

Gee, let's see.....Bob Cesca really agrees that Single Payer is the way to go; but he does nothing to support or acknowledge the Kucinich amendment, the Weiner amendment, the Pelosi sit-ins, nor the Mobilization for Health Care at www.moblizeforhealthcare.org

Now we have wussy Redmond who states:

"Adding... You could also file this post under "Why Voting for Kucinich in 2012 is a HORRIBLE Idea." Don't get me wrong, I agree with the guy on a majority of issues but realistically he's just not electable and I prefer casting votes that won't land the GOP back in the White House. That's just me."

Who says he "agrees with the guy" but won't back him.

I can see why Obama, Cesca, and Redmond are three peas in a political pod.

Easy with the words so that you *think* they believe in and support certain ideas and values but when push comes to shove: no real action.

When it comes to that which we believe in, are passionate about, care about, believe in people tend to do the following:

1. Talk about it
2. Put our money where our mouth is
3. Support it in tangible ways
4. Defend and protect it
5. Are willing to fight for it and sacrifice for it.

So, let's get real here:

Cesca is NO single payer supporter at all.

Redmond is not really behind what Kucinich stands for or believes in.

If either Cesca or Redmond really believed in what they claim to --- they would behave differently and it would be convincing.

Reminds me of a certain president who also says a lot.

Lee, way to focus on mandates and mandates alone. There were other thoughts in both of those posts, you know.

Terri, you sound like a far-left version of Glenn Beck.

Stranahan:

>>>Bob made it semantics by equivocating on what the word 'mandate' means.

Nope. You couldn't admit that your video was inaccurate; refused to correct it; and instead engaged in a hair-splitting attack on me about the difference between the words "mandate" and "mandatory."

Hardly! I'm quite logical.

A leads to B which leads to C.

My thinking and arguments are quite reasoned.

...but Beck does name call when he's got nothin' else to go on, Norm.

But I hardly watch the guy or any of the wingnuttia. They bore me. Always the same show.

That's right, he does name-call! All you're missing is a chalkboard with misspelled words.

I really don't understand the left's circular firing squad. I never have.

It seems to me that between Bob and Lee, a liberal truth lies. If I'm not mistaken, both agree the bill currently under discussion is far from ideal. The difference comes between the "something is better than nothing" vs. "get it right the first time" colored by shades of whether Obama has been fighting hard enough for a good bill. I don't see this as an insurmountable difference. Forgive me if I'm misconstruing your positions, gentlemen.

On the one hand, I agree that something is better than nothing - except for individual mandates. I also agree that Obama hasn't been pushing (as far as I can tell) for a better bill. On the other, the guy is going to be president for at least another 3 years. There are a lot of messes to clean, and I'm not about to write off the guy tasked with cleaning them up.

I'd rather see a less-than-stellar HCR bill pass, thereby expanding Obama's political capital to address the other problems rather than stake all on this one throw. Doesn't mean I don't prefer single-payer (I do), or consider HCR vital (I do) but I don't want to lose sight of the many other issues that require addressing, which Obama will have difficulty doing politically if he loses this battle.

All that said, I really can't wait for the next "Agree to Disagree" to hear a pair of minds I greatly admire and respect debate the hell out of all this :)

Via Matt Taibbi: ...polls taken in the week after her resignation showed that 71% of Republicans were now prepared to vote for her for president in 2012...

71% of 21% is....

And didn't Bill Maher pass into the land of dumbass when he became an "anti-vaxxer"

If I may jump in for a moment...

Lee accused Redmond of "...acting as though it's childish to have a problem with him breaking campaign promises."

Lee, if you haven't realized by now that politicians don't deliver everything that they promise during campaigns then you're way beyond childish. You've reached a level of naïveté that is almost unfathomable for somebody who follows politics so closely. They're called "political realities."

Shit, that's something that most of us realized when our 5th grade class president didn't get us the soda machine in the lunchroom that he promised.

Grow up man.

Terri, you're ridiculous. I like Kucinich a lot too, he reflects my political philosophy, but I'm not gonna vote for him because he isn't widely perceived as a strong leader and therefore will never be president. I think I would be a good president too but I have never voted for myself.

Lee and Terri have also resorted to personal attacks and name-calling. Lee, wasn't it you who got so angry with the left for disliking Obama's choice of Rick Warren?

In fact, my earlier quote:

If you are mad about mandates, I'm not attacking you. I understand your anger and I'm not saying it's not justified. But it's all right to let your anger go, too. It doesn't mean surrender, it doesn't mean giving up the struggle for healthcare reform.

Those are your words, with 'mandates' and 'healthcare reform' replacing 'Rick Warren' and 'equality', respectively.

You like to make people debate others' quotes, as Bob just conveniently pointed out in another thread. Why don't you debate your own words for a moment? Or will you just keep going on about 'mandates' again?

Maybe I imagined that Bob said that. If he didn't, he should have.

I like pie. But I hate leftwingbaggers. What to do, what to do...

Very nicely done Klaus

I'd rather see a less-than-stellar HCR bill pass, thereby expanding Obama's political capital to address the other problems rather than stake all on this one throw. Doesn't mean I don't prefer single-payer (I do), or consider HCR vital (I do) but I don't want to lose sight of the many other issues that require addressing, which Obama will have difficulty doing politically if he loses this battle.

I think we need to come up with another name for them, Jane. "Leftwingbaggers" is so unwieldy.

In other news, That said, let me know how health care reform thrives under an administration who thinks the King James and a Tylenol should replace Medicare. was fucking genius, you crazy, goddamn, left-hating bastard.

I simply can't debate someone who argues in broad generalizations, nor can I debate someone who invokes other writers as a crutch and makes me debate their points, too. When you're ready to debate based upon factual information and empirical reality, let me know.

Okay, I'm not crazy. At least not the Glenn-Beck-putting-words-in-others'-mouths sense.

I also think I should get some irony points for quoting this.

WOW...this has really brought up some hidden angst here.

Indulge me here, as a child of mid century America, who grew up with the quagmire of Vietnam and the insanity that almost ripped this country to shreds in a horrible downward spiral that left us naked against the likes of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan. I look at the position that this country is in now and I look at what our basically newly elected President has in front of him, in the way of insurmountable odds, and I can't help but automatically categorize these problems into some sort of workable order. If history has taught us anything, we should understand that the mistakes of the past can come back to bite us in the ass big time.

I am going to make an assumption that Barack Obama is doing the same and understands that he is basically dealing with a house of cards that could come tumbling down on his head if he makes just one wrong move.

Everyone is pulling this apart from every different direction and failing to understand that what concerns them is not necessarily what is best for the entire nation. I think that it is time for some of the citizens of this country, from both ends of the spectrum, to grow the fuck up. Turn the channel on your televisions away from cable news, stop reading the crap that has become the Huffington Post ( as someone else already mentioned).

We have become a nation of whiners who just needs to have instant gratification.

irony points=fellatio, Norman. Fellatio.

...and yes, I sit at the kids' table.

ah jane, it is good to see you again

Bob

Not only was your post designed to confuse people about the difference between The Individual Mandate and Single Payer...

And not only was my video accurate for 30 second spot...

But my video revealed something that I STILL haven't seen yoy say anything critical about - that the House bill allows the insurance companies to charge people currently without health insurance 25-fucking-per-cent MORE then the already high rates...or face a fine.

It's wrong, Bob. It's morally wrong and it's against everything you claim to believe in. But you support it.

You support people being fleeced. That's disgusting, Bob. Why haven't you spoked out against it?

I blame Obama.

So, how about those Yankees?

Oh, Klaus, now you are just deliberately trying to start a fight, aren't you?

Me? ;)

Go Yankees!

I read the Maher piece earlier today.

To summarize: The Obama's got a dog and didn't do much of anything else. But I'm glad we didn't get McCain and Palin.

This is beyond ignorant. Bill Maher is talking out of his ass. If this sums it up for anyone, you can't be taken seriously as a dissenting voice.

"Even Bill Maher's saying it..."

That's not good enough. Bill Maher is an unfunny self-righteous smart ass with a you know what grinds my gears shtick.

And Arianna's commentary hurts my ears. She's siphoning off right wing readership with an increasingly crazier bag of ideas and perspective. She's trying too hard to become the queen bee of the internet. The comments at HuffPo are chock full of deceiving concern trolls and knee jerk reactionaries.

You don't storm in to office like Che Guevara and within the first few months outlaw banking and bankers, the federal reserve, corporate profits, pollution, international commerce, and capitalism in general. You don't round up George Bush and Dick Cheney and put them on trial for warcrimes. Congress had their chance to respond during those years. The way I remember it, it's been a group effort that fucked this country up ever since Reagan.

America is a mixed bag of aggressive interests and this president's job doesn't involve ignoring the role of congress and capitalism to do what Ralph Nader and Bill Maher wants to do.

America has been held hostage for years and Obama is thee Hostage Negotiator In Chief.

He's doing an outstanding job considering the dynamic of frothing nuts wishing him dead and gone.

Some people need to chill out. We're in good hands. Maybe the best hands ever.

Some people need to chill out. We're in good hands. Maybe the best hands ever.

I love Obama. FDR he is not.

But I like this, Klaus: You don't storm in to office like Che Guevara and within the first few months outlaw banking and bankers, the federal reserve, corporate profits, pollution, international commerce, and capitalism in general. Besides, beneath the groovy-cool hat, we wouldn't have liked Che.

And GO PHILLIES!!

Hey, I met David Plouffe tonight!! Just wanted to throw in some good news. Shook his hand, got his autograph - nice guy!

"I love Obama. FDR he is not."

What would FDR do about terrorism?

Arab Internment camps?

Nobody's perfect.

FDR also got pretty much everything he wanted in his first 100 days from congress. What would he do about Blue Dogs?

FDR used radical means, sometimes unconstitutional, to stabilize the nation's banking and labor sectors and it didn't happen overnight-- or even within the first term. Obama's making better progress than FDR in this area.

Side bar: This isn't the first time unemployment was 10%. People need to remember that Reagan presided over 10% unemployment and his poll numbers in 1983 were 35%. 35%! We went from being the nation's foremost creditor nation to the world's foremost debtor nation under Reagan while the deficit exploded to unprecedented levels for peacetime, and he's considered one of the greatest presidents of all time. Go figure.

FDR led a massive war effort that aided recovery and soothed unemployment, but it obscured the realities and actual effectiveness of his economic policies which have been argued to have "preserved the worst evils of capitalism," despite all the good that came of them.

These are different times with numerous recurring problems that the president inherited 100%. Obama does have the benefit of drawing on FDR and every president since to stabilize the economy and restore confidence in America again. To "save capitalism" and protect labor and manufacturing is a shit shoveling job. But we've also got environmental concerns, outdated social injustices, trade policies, hostile nuclear pursuits in unstable regions, and a foreign policy that cannot be decided by a few guys in a room sipping cognac and martinis over a map of the world.

We went from FDR until Reaganomics without a billion dollar bailout. Conservative policies are poison. It seems to be a lesson easily forgotten or white washed.

Obama is more respectful of the constitution than FDR, but FDR gets all the glory?

I don't want an FDR today. That would scare the crap out of me. Too radical too fast.

I just want his financial regs restored and updated.

True, Obama is far more respectful of the Constitution, and that is no smalll point.

However, FDR didn't bother to bend over backwards to appease the Liebermans and Snowes of his day.

And he pushed his agenda despite the millstone of Southern Democrats around his neck.

I don't really see how Obama isn't pushing his agenda.

I do see him pushing uphill, though.

It can't be easy when you're president of a country where corporate greed has so systematically compromised the media, congress, and even the supreme court-- manipulating what we think we know about the history of America and our role in the world along the way.

It can't be easy when the senate is chock full of unreasonable partisan obstructionists, religious extremists, bigots, and lying attack dogs.

It can't be easy being president in a country where 40% of the population thinks Sarah Palin should have been the next president.

It can't be easy resisting the urge to unilaterally usurp the constitution and states rights to force his agenda for expedience sake.

Usurp is a funny little word. Usurp

But despite the mighty forces that have been building and manipulating since their failed attempt to overthrow FDR, Obama's gotten a lot done within the constraints of a constitutional republic.

He is pushing his agenda, despite "leaders" like Harry Reid and "friends" like Lieberman.

And FDR wasn't a black man trying to persuade Southern Republicans who still wave the Confederate flag.

I'm going to forgo all sense of politeness and request that Stranahan and Terri kindly shut the fuck up.

As a long time reader of this blog and supporter of Bob, quite frankly I'm sick and tired of your horse shit. If you don't like the views of Bob or the others who post here, go elsewhere and rant. Enough is enough. I'm surprised he even continues to entertain your asinine posts after all of the crap you've said about him.

Stranahan, it's time for you to move on and stop riding on the coattails of this blog. Take your insults and far left douchebaggery and hit the fucking pike.

Lee:

>>>But my video revealed something that I STILL haven't seen yoy say anything critical about - that the House bill allows the insurance companies to charge people currently without health insurance 25-fucking-per-cent MORE then the already high rates...or face a fine.

That's not true, Lee. What don't you understand about Page 22? It's about high-risk pools, and there aren't any mandates for that coverage. In fact, you have to qualify under a set of rules in order to get coverage! What's wrong with you? Why can't you read the bill? Start at the bottom of Page 16 and READ THE BILL!

Adding... I have a post going up later this morning about high-risk pools. The House bill makes it cheaper -- not more expensive -- for high-risk people to buy insurance until the exchanges are ready to launch.

maybe the opposite of "teabaggers" could be "coffeefilters" for the far left purisits who are just smarter versions of the "purity at all costs" teabaggers. It si also appropriate because by taking their purity only standce they will be filtering liberal "coffee" out of office. :)

plus coffeefilter isn't a euphemism for a sexual act, right? :)

Thank you, Mr. Brink. Your posts always make my day.

Bob says:

>>That's not true, Lee. What don't you understand about Page 22? It's about high-risk pools, and there aren't any mandates for that coverage. In fact, you have to qualify under a set of rules in order to get coverage! What's wrong with you? Why can't you read the bill? Start at the bottom of Page 16 and READ THE BILL!

Read the bill? You want him to actually read the bill? Why should he when it's far easier for him to just come here and spew bullshit and spread misinformation?

Like I requested in my earlier post...please stfu Lee or get out of the way.

I love you too Mr. Brink. Nice to see some logic being sad so very well.

Mr. Brink, thank you! Your historical, long term perspective is spot on.

People on the left need to be very careful and not worship at the altar of FDR (otherwise we become just like the right who worship Reagan). History will judge both the left and right as fools.

While I'm sympathetic to Lee's and Terri's positions, I am NOT sympathetic to their naivete. I knew when Campaign Obama said he would withdraw immediately from Iraq that it wasn't true. I believed then, as I do now, that was his intention. But I knew that he knew, the reality was you can't move 200,000 people out of a theater of war right away. And beyond the physical logistics of it, our system is built so that nothing short of a "9/11" or "Pearl Harbor" moments allows our government to act quickly.

Lee and Terri, it's okay to continue to advocate your positions. But why can't you do it without undermining the President and the entire Democractic party? Why does it have to be so ugly and counterproductive?