Journal smittyoneeach's Journal: Obama the "Conservative", my neon white glutes 84
The point of showing that Obama is carrying out a massive scheme to defraud â" one that certainly would be prosecuted if committed in the private sector â" is not to agitate for a prosecution that is never going to happen. It is to demonstrate that there is logic to the lies. There is an objective that the fraud aims to achieve. The scheme is the framework within which the myriad deceptions are peddled. Once you understand the scheme, once you can put the lies in a rational context, you understand why fraud was the presidentâ(TM)s only option â" and why âoeIf you like your plan, you can keep your planâ barely scratches the surface of Obamacareâ(TM)s deceit.
In 2003, when he was an ambitious Illinois state senator from a hyper-statist district, Obama declared:
I happen to be a proponent of a single-payer universal health-care program. I see no reason why the United States of America, the wealthiest country in the history of the world, spending 14 percent of its gross national product on health care, cannot provide basic health insurance to everybody. . . . Everybody in, nobody out. A single-payer health care plan, a universal health care plan. Thatâ(TM)s what Iâ(TM)d like to see. But as all of you know, we may not get there immediately.
That is the Obamacare scheme.
It is a Fabian plan to move an unwilling nation, rooted in free enterprise, into Washington-controlled, fully socialized medicine. As its tentacles spread over time, the scheme (a) pushes all Americans into government markets (a metastasizing blend of Medicare, Medicaid, and âoeexchangesâ run by state and federal agencies); (b) dictates the content of the âoeprivateâ insurance product; (c) sets the price; (d) micromanages the patient access, business practices, and fees of doctors; and (e) rations medical care. Concurrently, the scheme purposely sows a financing crisis into the system, designed to explode after Leviathan has so enveloped health care, and so decimated the private medical sector, that a British- or Canadian-style âoefreeâ system â" formerly unthinkable for the United States â" becomes the inexorable solution.
Once you grasp that this is the scheme, the imperative to lull the public with lies makes sense. Like all swindles, Obamacare cannot work if its targeted victims figure out the endgame before it is a fait accompli.
Avail yourself of the full thing.
Tell us o wise one (Score:1)
What do you think would happen if he told the truth? And try to wrap your head around asking what would happen to any politician who attempts to tell the truth? When are you going to accept that this a game of sycophants and that you really are unseen? Unless you have an ability to draw a crowd? Then, you're either an asset or an enemy.
Re: (Score:3)
But such integrity seems to be beyond the man.
Re: (Score:1)
But we aren't "broke" and socialism has not proven to be a failure. It is only under attack by those who feel threatened by the abundance of our output. So they create scarcity through war and theft. You're still living in a fantasy that this is about anything more than wealth/power/sex. "Respect"? Please! From whom? His financiers? That's funny! Respect has yet to win an election. Stop trying to apply your moral indignation to a business that has no morals. "Respect" is measured in dollars. And there the m
Re: (Score:2)
It is only under attack by those who feel threatened by the abundance of our output. So they create scarcity through war and theft.
They create scarcity through bureaucratic incompetence (see: ObamaCare) and engage in war and theft (see: IRS) to diminish liberty.
You're still living in a fantasy that this is about anything more than wealth/power/sex.
I am? Really? Had you knowledge of my political fantasies, you might find them more libertarian in strain.
If you want truth tellers in office, you will have to seek them out and conscript them, chain them to the chair and hang the sword over their heads. No person who wants the job is ever going to make it without lying.
Furthermore, when you get people like Alan West into office, who have a shred of integrity, they are run out at the next election. Unexpectedly.
Re: (Score:1)
But we aren't "broke"
It depends on how you measure it. It seems likely our liabilities are too great to be paid for, and the drop from AAA to AA+ will soon seem like the good old days.
socialism has not proven to be a failure
It depends on how you define failure. It's mostly proven, I think, that socialism cannot create great economies like the U.S. has had. And it has certainly been proven -- definitionally, and in practice -- that socialism violates human rights, to whatever degree it is implemented as socialism.
It is only under attack by those who feel threatened by the abundance of our output.
Sorry, but that's idiotic in the extreme. There's n
Re: (Score:1)
What do you think would happen if he told the truth?
The ACA would have been far more likely to fail to pass the Senate.
That's McCarthy's point. He had to lie for it to pass, and it was acceptable for him to be caught, as long as it didn't change the progression of the policy.
Re: (Score:1)
The ACA would have been far more likely to fail to pass the Senate.
Exactly so, sir! To the great displeasure of the people who financed the campaigns, on both sides. And had it been so, they would finance different candidates, and one of them would be president today. I cannot understand why you fight and deny the glaringly obvious. Nature is such a beautiful sight to behold. You need to accept and embrace what we are.
Re: (Score:1)
The ACA would have been far more likely to fail to pass the Senate.
Exactly so, sir! To the great displeasure of the people who financed the campaigns, on both sides.
False. The Republicans wanted it to NOT pass, as did most of their constituents and funders. That's why they got even more funding in 2010, because they wanted to kill the ACA.
I cannot understand why you fight and deny the glaringly obvious. Nature is such a beautiful sight to behold. You need to accept and embrace what we are.
Please explain, without sounding crazy, whaty it is that I deny.
Re: (Score:1)
whaty it is that I deny
well, reality in general.
Such as?
but more specifically in this case you are denying the reality that the guys on your team are seasoned liars as well.
You're obviously lying. Why?
you conveniently painted only the democrats (that evil, crafty bunch them!) as liars and your beloved republicans as saints.
I'd ask you to quote me doing this, but I know you won't bother to try, because you know you can't, because I never did. All I said is that they opposed the ACA, when he falsely claimed otherwise. I am gratified, though, that you -- an anonymous coward who is friends with the leftists here -- see being opposed to the ACA as being saintly. That speaks well of you, at least.
I do wonder what you hope to gain by lying, though. Are you like damn_registrars, merely hoping
Re: (Score:1)
so in your world the gop is capable of no lies. such a statement does not come as a surprise from you.
You're lying. I made no such statement.
how do you conclude the ac to be friends with anyone in particular? perhaps the ac is just not fond of hyperbolic liars such as yourself.
Pull the other one.
I'm sorry... (Score:1)
You seem to have mistaken me for that guy with the really horrid teeth I was about 8 years ago, and now has dentures, having continued to reside in the US. Fortunately, that guy's not me, because I moved to Sweden where dental care is heaps cheaper to start with, and any worker can get assistance with need through national health insurance, and even private (supplemental) insurance is about half what it costs in the US.
Or perhaps you've mistaken me for the bloke whose kid was born in the US by an emergency
Re: (Score:3)
Nor, in fact, do I: if the safety net is (a) funded, and (b) managed at the proper level, i.e. the States.
Re: (Score:2)
I dont know about Germany; I have lived in Sweden and while it's a two-edged sword I will grant it works better than what we have now in the USA. What we have now, of course, being nothing like a free market at all, but a bastard mixed-economy mode designed at every point to ensure the profits of the well-connected insurance companies.
Re: (Score:1)
Indeed. The biggest lie told in all of this is that the choice was between the ACA and a free-market system that left people behind, when all along it's been a massively government-controlled system where government has been the direct cause of people being left behind, by manipulating the market to increase prices.
Re: (Score:1)
Do you know the reason why insurance costs so much here? Do you?
If you did, you would not be using more government as a solution to the problem (unless, like Obama, you just wanted to lie).
The biggest reason, by far, why insurance costs so much here is because the overwhelming majority of health insurances consumers are dissociated from the costs, of both insurance AND the care itself. We don't shop for insurance, and we don't even ask the cost of care until after we get it.
And do you know why the ACA did
Speaking of Obama... (Score:1)
Not an unquestioning fan of the man, but IMO he's looking pretty damn clever this morning [bbc.co.uk].
Suck it, haters.
Who, Lurch? (Score:2)
You stay beautiful and silly, Zontar. Doesn't make your butt look big at all, I promise.
Obama is the conservative (Score:1)
So with that settled, you need to ask yourself why
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot point to a single president we have ever had who has had a more conservative fiscal policy than Obama.
Coolidge [amazon.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot point to a single president we have ever had who has had a more conservative fiscal policy than Obama.
Coolidge
You're joking, right?
By 1927, only the richest 2% of taxpayers paid any federal income tax. [wikipedia.org]
That is the exact opposite of a modern conservative. Furthermore, as with every conservative president we've had since, President Lawnchair has signed off on repeated ways for the wealthiest Americans to avoid paying taxes.
In other words, you failed badly with that one. Feel free to try again.
Re: (Score:2)
ObamaCare is Benghazi is Fast&Furious is Pig
Re: (Score:2)
I'm really kind of bored.
The kind of creativity you have shown, in the way you keep changing the subject whenever I show where your arguments require craz
Re: (Score:2)
Smitty are you no longer capable of holding to one side of one argument?
I love you, man. And I'll tell you, in all love, that I've held to the same argument, liberty, for years. Where it's shifted slightly (due to you and fustakrakich and others) is a recognition of the duplicity of the GOP elite. But Rousseau is still an idiot, and all variations on his themes still false.
The kind of creativity you have shown, in the way you keep changing the subject whenever I show where your arguments require crazed assumptions and total suspension of reality, suggests that you are likely quite excited in actuality.
You've shown nothing, my arguments are founded on math, and I am more clinically interested in why you continue this line of attack than anything.
Are you cuckoo for cocoa puffs?
Are you cynically attempting
Re: (Score:1)
...I have not supported his actions.
Yes you have. You voted for him, probably twice. That indicates full approval of his actions, regardless how they contradict his words. He's not a "lawn chair". He's a comfy chair [wikimedia.org]..
Re: (Score:2)
...I have not supported his actions.
Yes you have. You voted for him, probably twice. That indicates full approval of his actions
No, it indicates a desire to not face the outcomes of what would happen if the next feasible candidate were elected. As I said before, I had a choice between someone who (at best) will leave my job stagnant with little hope for progression or growth, or someone who wants me to lose my job entirely. Given that choice I will opt for the first bucket of shit, every single time.
If my career - and my ability to earn enough money to feed myself - is on the line, then not voting is not an option, nor is vot
Re: (Score:2)
To insist that the voter must match every position of every person they vote for is idiotic. To insist that a voter must endorse every single action taken by every person they voted for is even worse.
Isn't that the standard you're seeking to hold me to?
Re: (Score:2)
To insist that the voter must match every position of every person they vote for is idiotic. To insist that a voter must endorse every single action taken by every person they voted for is even worse.
Isn't that the standard you're seeking to hold me to?
Simply, no.
In more detail I am just trying to get you to stop squirming around on matters, and actually look at the world from a non-hyperpartisan viewpoint. You put your first assumptions onto things - often seemingly fueled by opinion pieces from people who share your viewpoints - and then when presented with facts counter to those you shove your fingers in your ears.
Re: (Score:2)
non-hyperpartisan viewpoint
Isn't that the standard you're seeking to hold me to? I repeatedly affirm that it's all a Progressive Ruling Class, and you insist on pushing me into your big bales of strawmen. *yawn*
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't that the standard you're seeking to hold me to?
No, although I am beginning to see why you are so confused. I am trying to get to the bottom of why you blindly hate all people with a (D) after their name with such passion; I see your choice to hold such hatred as nothing more than hyperpartisanship. Indeed you don't have to agree with all the people who hold an (R) after their names - and indeed you are vastly more conservative than most who ever have.
I repeatedly affirm that it's all a Progressive Ruling Class
If by progressive, you mean progressively conservative, then sure. If Reagan achieved a 10 in terms
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I had held a bias against the Democrats, as I knew they were the entry point for the Commie disease vector
That is one epically slow disease to proceed. Untold numbers of people have literally developed and died of far more dramatic diseases in the time it has taken for this disease to not go anywhere.
Yet you seem fixated on "hyper-partisanship"
I use the term to point out that you blindly exhibit great hatred towards anyone who places a (D) after their name, or dares to suggest that someone else who does might not be 100% evil.
when the struggle for liberty is what I'm actually about.
I know that you like to use this peculiar definition of "liberty", that does not match how the rest of the world uses the term
Re: (Score:1)
Whenever you say "liberty", you should put that little smiley thingy next to it, or maybe even the sarcastic emoticon if there is one, since you have already proven you're not serious.
Re: (Score:2)
"you prefer a definition of "liberty" that exists in such a way that unequal access to such is not a problem"
What do you mean?
Re: (Score:2)
you have already proven you're not serious
How so?
Re: (Score:2)
"you prefer a definition of "liberty" that exists in such a way that unequal access to such is not a problem"
What do you mean?
What I mean is that the Tea Party supports a system of liberty for sale to the highest bidder. if you cannot afford to bid, you get no promise of liberty. if you are not born with access to money, your chance at liberty and the American Dream(TM) would be nearly nonexistent. The Tea Party describes such a situation as "pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps" or some other such bullshit. Others would describe it as social Darwinism, but of course because the Tea Party portrays itself as ardent belie
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet here you are, hotly giving me a "Do you honestly believe. .
*yawn*
If you want to know what I honestly believe, I can answer in the negative that I do not believe you.
Re: (Score:2)
Can you show me one education proposal from the Tea Party that actually was designed to hel
Re: (Score:2)
Let the States figure it out. THAT is a Tea Party position.
The repeatedly champion charter schools and other "solutions" that overwhelming make education available only to people of specific socio-economic classes.
Just how does a charter school here reach over and slam a book shut one county away? I think your causal analysis is jacked up through the roof.
The[y] repeatedly endorse actions that drive up tuition at public universities as well, using a variety of derogatory names to describe such places.
See Instapundit [google.com]. Public universities, along with the federal education racket, are all about making young Americans debt-slaves, while polluting their Preciou
Re: (Score:1)
Let the States figure it out. THAT is a Tea Party position.
Word [wikimedia.org]...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
*cough*Democrat*cough*
That supposed to mean something? All those old dixiecrats have flipped over to the republicans, but are now more closely related to the tea party. All your 'charter' schools and 'correctional' system are the new gates of Jim Crow. And I'll believe that crap about social media having any ability to rock the boat when all the concentrated wealth/power is voted out for good. So far all indications are that Madison Ave. still has a firm grip on all media.
Re: (Score:2)
Because #Winning.
Re: (Score:1)
You really think I don't know what the democrats are? And always were? Everybody around me is wagging the dog.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
There are some who still think it possible to at least decentralize matters, if not exactly limit the net overall corruption.
That only signifies that you want to make the corruption more accessible, to enjoy a taste of honey. Corruption is in the heart, not in D.C. or even on Wall Street.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
I think that the corruption--we see it afoot in blue states today...
You are so completely bonkers, and fixated,and obsessed! That, or your sense of humor is superb..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Unfortunately that's all you're doing.. simply repeating the same old shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for clearing that up, mate.
Re: (Score:1)
It's you and d_r trolling each other. I just like to put the occasional peanut onto the tracks.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Your vote is your support and approval. You can voice opposition all you want, but it all means diddly when it doesn't jibe with your acts. You provide no incentive for change when you vote for the same old crap. Or you really don't want change, not when it could jeopardize what you have. That's called being caught in the monkey trap. And you most certainly are. What's funny is that Smitty (pudge, and many others) is on the other side of the tree, caught in the same trap, with both of you clinging to the sa
Re: (Score:1)
By 1927, only the richest 2% of taxpayers paid any federal income tax. [wikipedia.org]
True.
That is the exact opposite of a modern conservative.
Only to someone, like you, who doesn't know shit about conservatism.
Actually, I am being too kind. In fact, you read the page and you know what really happened: they went from tax rates of around 50% at the top to 25% at the top. So no, you aren't being ignorant here, you're just lying. This was a highly conservative policy: a massive tax cut for every income tax payer.
Furthermore, as with every conservative president we've had since, President Lawnchair has signed off on repeated ways for the wealthiest Americans to avoid paying taxes.
... which is also not "conservative." Conservatives want fairness, and special breaks for certain groups of people is anti-conserva
Re: (Score:2)
By 1927, only the richest 2% of taxpayers paid any federal income tax.
True.
That is the exact opposite of a modern conservative.
Only to someone, like you, who doesn't know shit about conservatism.
...Conservatives want fairness
While the insult doesn't surprise me in the least as it has been part of your standard MO when replying to me for years now, it does surprise me that you went for such a short distance before contradicting yourself. How is placing 100% of the federal government's income tax burden on 2% of the people in any way a pursuit of "fairness"? Even the twisted sense of "fair" that you favor d
Re: (Score:1)
How is placing 100% of the federal government's income tax burden on 2% of the people in any way a pursuit of "fairness"?
I already explained how: what actually happened is that they got a massive tax cut.
Oh, and you forgot to accuse me of lying.
No, I did. You must have missed that when you missed me explaining how you were wrong to call massive tax cuts unconservative.
You described a massive tax cut on the wealthy as an unfair and unconservative increase in the wealthy's burden. That's a lie, by any measure.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Pudge, you flat out contradicted yourself.
False. And it's completely expected that you didn't actually demonstrate me doing so.
I demonstrated it plainly
And I demonstrated, far more convincingly, that your demonstration was based on missing information. And you didn't rebut my demonstration. Because you can't. Same old story.
and now you have resorted back to your classic response of accusing me of lying
Because you, as usual, lied.
It's what you always do. You lie, I prove you lie, and then instead of showing that you were actually correct, you attack me for pointing out the fact that you lied.
The facts are clear: You framed Coolidge's taxes as bei
Re: (Score:2)
Pudge, you flat out contradicted yourself.
False. And it's completely expected that you didn't actually demonstrate me doing so.
Since you opted to start your comment with a bald-faced lie there is no purpose to replying to any of it. I very clearly demonstrated how you contradicted yourself, and all the facts support my demonstration of you contradicting yourself. I'm sorry that reality are so difficult for you, feel free to try again sometime if you ever decide you want to have a discussion based on facts rather than based on your feelings.
I'm not holding my breath for that to happen, though.
Re: (Score:1)
Since you opted to start your comment with a bald-faced lie
The funny thing is that you pretend I am the one who doesn't want to have a discussion, when it's clear to everyone that you're full of shit, that when someone -- especially me -- actually provides arguments you think you cannot rebut, you refuse to engage, and resort to bullshit, getting your jollies on parodying my arguments and pretending that you're making a statement to your little friends. From here, it's amusing to watch you flail around, but it's also sad because it appears that you think you're be
Re: (Score:2)
This business of calling Obama "conservative" is just the icing on the steamer.
Re: (Score:1)
no pudge, everyone knows that YOU are lyin.
Then why has not everyone, or anyone, cited an example?
you thought you could somehow win this discussion for your team
If by my "team" you mean "people who aren't stupid," and by "win" you mean "make your case," then sure. I made the case, very clearly, and with no rebuttals, the case that Obama is liberal and Coolidge is conservative.
If you disagree, present a case. damn_registrars refuses to ... because he knows he can't.
Re: (Score:1)
I am completely shocked that you refuse to present a case, just as he so refused.
Re: (Score:1)
she showed her case, with sources.
No source was provided, in fact. Since he didn't provide a source, and neither did you, I'll stop reading this comment now.
Re: (Score:1)
pudge she just handed you your own ass on a plate, again.
Cite him doing so. (I expect you won't, of course, because you can't, because he didn't.)
after all, makin shit up ain't getting you anywhere.
Line-stealer.
Re: (Score:1)
You cannot point to a single president we have ever had who has had a more conservative fiscal policy than Obama.
Um. Bush. Clinton. Bush. Reagan. All of them. By a lot.
Obama gave us the biggest increases in annual spending since WWII and the biggest welfare program ever and the greatest increases in debt ever. Calling this "conservative" is flatly stupid. There is little, if anything, conservative about Obama's agenda.
Re: (Score:2)
Can't tell if he's rational, and merely trolling, or has simply lost his shiznit.
Empirically, the distinction isn't important, but if it's the latter, I hope he gets help.
Re: (Score:2)
You cannot point to a single president we have ever had who has had a more conservative fiscal policy than Obama.
Um. Bush. Clinton. Bush. Reagan. All of them. By a lot.
Every single one of them increased taxes more than Obama. Obama has delivered or extended several tax breaks to the wealthiest echelons of this country.
Obama gave us the biggest increases in annual spending since WWII
Only by extending the same programs that were established by his "conservative" predecessors. Meanwhile many classifications of spending that are classically labeled as "liberal" have stagnated or been reduced in absolute dollars - scientific research and space exploration being just two examples of that.
There is little, if anything, conservative about Obama's agenda.
Only if you ignore what he has done with money:
Re: (Score:1)
You cannot point to a single president we have ever had who has had a more conservative fiscal policy than Obama.
Um. Bush. Clinton. Bush. Reagan. All of them. By a lot.
Every single one of them increased taxes more than Obama.
False.
Obama has delivered or extended several tax breaks to the wealthiest echelons of this country.
He extended, yes. And raised, yes.
The leftist amnesia is bizarre. Obama raised taxes on the wealthy less than a year ago, yet within a couple of months, according to Obama himself, it never happened. That tells us something about the public desire for tax increases on the wealthy, if nothing else.
Obama gave us the biggest increases in annual spending since WWII
Only by extending the same programs that were established by his "conservative" predecessors.
False, obviously. The stimulus, which was one of the biggest causes of that massive spending increase, was all Obama's. And he increased the spending significantly on Afghanistan. And while the spending
Re: (Score:2)
.
Whoops, you didn't. I actually showed sources, and as usual you did not. I'm not even sure that you believe the talking points that you are spewing out any more; it would certainly be tragic if you did considering how much they flat out disregard reality.
Go ahead, accuse me of lying. You won't use sources to back up your accusation but you aren't one to let somet
Re: (Score:1)
I actually showed sources
As usual, you're lying. You didn't provide a single source, for anything.
and as usual you did not
Tell me what you want a source for. Nothing I said is controversial or not well-known, so I see nothing to provide sources for. For example, it is well-known that Obama raised taxes on the wealthy. Everyone who follows politics knows this, even if the Democrats pretend it never happened. But if you want a source for that, if you want to admit your ignorance and lack of ability to use Google ... by all means, ask for whatever sourc
Re: (Score:2)
I actually showed sources
As usual, you're lying. You didn't provide a single source, for anything.
Why are you lying about me? Does that make you feel better about yourself? I plainly provided a source to what Coolidge did with taxes. I even formatted it so it was a convenient little link for people to click on so they would go right to it.
Take a look again: there's a link in that comment, that I provided [slashdot.org]. You could try to respond to it with facts, but instead all you have done so far is state your own opinion, which is not based on facts. You have not given a single source to back up any of y