What's the big deal?

[clocker]

Do you intend that^^^ to suffice as something other than a screed.

I am disappointed you have nothing to offer but insults.

That wasn't an insult, it was an observation and if you're insulted it's because you recognize the truth.

So I guess we're just supposed to sit back and acquiesce to the B.O. machine...now, you want rich, that's rich, coming from a 60's, east coast, educated liberal.

When did you or your cohort begin to advocate staying home and letting the government roll over it's citizens...or have you come to prefer the government buyout?

What are you so afraid of?

Afraid of?
Now that we've finally elected a leader who knows his head from his ass, my thinking is to let him do what I elected him for, which, as a sidenote, I don't consider to be getting "rolled over".

We don't get too excited when you demonstrate or criticize, so why this animus from rank-and-file libs like you?

Unless your view is that such liberties are for liberals only to exercise?

Gee whiz, that's censorship you're advocating now.

No idea what this means.
I just assume it was a brain fart and ignore it.

You're welcome.

That you continue to overlook the obvious is stunning.

I want to earn more than 250K, without being fettered by more onerous regulation and tax than already exists.

I'm overlooking the obvious?
You're the one who is against initiatives that would directly benefit you right now instead opting to whine about theoretical "burdens" for a future that may or may not come to pass.

Do you also have exclusive rights to the term "slippery slope"?

Or the supplemental fact that less slope is required to go downhill when additional efforts are being expended in aid of "icing" the runway so comprehensively that disaster is all but assured?

Sorry, I forgot...you don't believe in government, at least not one that functions as intended.
Always wondered why someone so opposed to government is so interested in politics.

I offer you the following, from the American Enterprise Institute:...

Gee, a right wing think tank, stocked with ex-Bushies...what a surprise.

Your and Obama's solution, though, is not growth, it is what I called it - confiscation, followed by re-distribution.

That is by definition unsustainable, so what do you do then?

Take it all, I guess.

Poor Kev's worst paranoid nightmare.
Interesting that for nearly 7 years you didn't worry about how Bush was funding his inane holy war- apparently squandering trillions in the effort to destroy Gog and Magog is an acceptable use of public money- but let a Democrat try to actually aid millions of Americans and you go apeshit.

Telling, that.

[j2k4]

So, in other words, you have no response.

BTW-

Is B.O.'s version of the war in Afghanistan being fought for free?

[clocker]

So, in other words, you have no response.

I do, you just didn't understand it.

BTW-

Is B.O.'s version of the war in Afghanistan being fought for free?

I assume not.
Why do you ask?

[sez]

The scintillating part about this health care debate is that no matter how many people these right wing hooligans are going to kidnap the bill is eventually going to pass.
Its high time people understood that a president always gets his way.

[clocker]

The point however is not just to get a bill passed, we need a good one passed.
One not gutted by lobbyists, without extraneous riders.

In other words, not another "No Child Left Behind" POS.

[j2k4]

Why should I give thanks?
Just because Fox piledrives a nonstop tsunami of Teabaggers, Birthers and Death Panelers through the airwaves doesn't mean that anyone who's learned to breathe through their nose believes any of that crap.

"Will probably continue to do so"?

Sorry - that's not good enough.

The rich (even as defined by Obama) could be totally fleeced and you would have enough (estimates vary) money to run the country somewhere between three and nine months, and the poor can't help at all.

Hypocrites.

"Not good enough"?
You want guarantees?
Tell me one thing in life that's guaranteed...besides death.
Anyone who promises unconditionally that things will continue as they have been- or even get better- is just flat out lying to you.
You want "your America" back?
As Larry Wilmore said, "Tell that to the Indians".

Your obsession with the "fleecing of the rich" is completely inexplicable.
First of all, you're not rich, so why do you care?
Secondly, the Obama tax plan has planned to increase the taxes on those making over $250k a year by what, 3 or 4 percent?
Oh geez, that's brutal...totally a "fleecejob" if I ever heard of one.
My God, one less dinner party in the Hamptons, whatever will we do?
This whole "Obama is going to force the wealthy to support the lazy poor" has absolutely no basis in fact...and you know it.
So just stop with the crocodile tears for the "wealthy", I'm sure they'll manage.

So, in other words, you have no response.

I do, you just didn't understand it.

I didn't understand what, precisely?

Apart from the expected and anticipated insults, there isn't much there.

BTW-

Is B.O.'s version of the war in Afghanistan being fought for free?

I assume not.
Why do you ask?

Obama is the one "pouring cash" into the effort now.

What are we to think of this?

Why doesn't he just pull out, as you would prefer?

After all, there is no terrorist threat when the dems are in charge, right?

And dems aren't expansionist empire-builders, right?

What's B.O.'d justification for being in Afghanistan?

As opposed to Bush's, I mean.

[j2k4]

One more thing-

Does this qualify as a cheap-shot at Obama, in light of his statements about 'keeping your current health-care plan if you like it'?

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-in-03-...lth-care-plan/

[clocker]

I didn't understand what, precisely?

Apart from the expected and anticipated insults, there isn't much there.

You mean there "isn't much there" that aligns with your right wing agenda, hence you can ignore it.

Obama is the one "pouring cash" into the effort now.

What are we to think of this?

Why doesn't he just pull out, as you would prefer?

After all, there is no terrorist threat when the dems are in charge, right?

And dems aren't expansionist empire-builders, right?

What's B.O.'d justification for being in Afghanistan?

As opposed to Bush's, I mean.

Obama is a politician and therefore as shackled by political reality as any other leader.

You're right, I would prefer a complete and abrupt withdrawal since the reasoning behind the original incursions were so flimsy and false.
In fact, I would prefer that Obama quit pandering to the right and just get on with the agenda he espoused but I'm not a politician and don't have to deal with the realities of Capitol Hill.

Even so, a "watered down" Obama is far preferable to the alternative.
Had McCain been elected, I'd expect that Palin would be just about ready to resign her position, the better to be all "mavericky" in another arena.