Obama's depression, economic policy failures, and 10% unemployment have resulted in many suicides this year including some in the military.  Pity he is more concerned with pushing his socialist redistribution agenda than putting people back to work.  He was going to save or create 4 million jobs, but lost 3 million instead.  Even the Chinese are bitch slapping him for his out of control spending.  Yet, the man's has no guilt or shame.   Obama, you are the biggest f-up in the history of the country!!!

I thought this op-ed piece was informative, especially for those with a limited grasp of history:

THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY
by Nicholas D. Kristof (New York Times)

Critics storm that health care reform is "a cruel hoax and a delusion."  Ads in 100 newspapers thunder that reform would mean "the beginning of socialized medicine."

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page predicts that the legislation will lead to "deteriorating service."  Business groups warn that Washington bureaucrats will invade "the privacy of the examination room," that we are on the road to rationed care and that patients will lose the "freedom to choose their own doctor."

All dire--but also wrong.  Those forecasts date not from this year, but from the battle over Medicare in the early 1960s.  I pulled them from newspaper archives and other accounts.

Yet this year those same accusations are being recycled in an attempt to discredit the health reform proposals now before Congress.  The heirs of those who opposed Medicare are conjuring the same bogeymen--only this time they claim to be protecting Medicare.

Indeed, these same arguments we hear today against health reform were used even earlier, to attack President Franklin Roosevelt's call for Social Security.  It was denounced as a socialist program that would compete with private insurers and add to Americans' tax burden so as to kill jobs.

Daniel Reed, a Republican representative from New York, predicted that with Social Security, Americans would come to feel "the lash of the dictator."  Senator Daniel Hastings, a Delaware Republican, declared that Social Security would "end the progress of a great country."

John Taber, a Republican representative from New York, went further and said of Social Security:  "Never in the history of the world has any measure been brought here so insidiously designed as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers."

In hindsight, it seems a bit ridiculous, doesn't it?  Social Security passed, and the republic survived. 

Similar, ferocious hyperbole was unleashed on the proposal for Medicare.  President John Kennedy and later President Lyndon Johnson pushed for a government health program for the elderly, but conservatives bitterly denounced the proposal as socialism, as a plan for bureaucrats to make medical decisions, as a means to ration health care.

The American Medical Association was vehement, with Dr. Donovan Ward, the head of the A.M.A. in 1965, declaring that "a deterioration in the quality of care is inescapable."    The president of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons went further and suggested that for doctors to cooperate with Medicare would be "complicity in evil."

The Wall Street Journal warned darkly in editorials in 1965 that Medicare amounted to "politicking with a nation's health."  It quoted a British surgeon as saying that in Britain, government health care was "crumbling to utter ruin" and suggested that the United States might be heading in the same direction.

"The basic concerns and arguments were the same" in 1935 against Social Security, in 1965 against Medicare, and today against universal coverage, said Nancy J. Altman, author of "The Battle for Social Security," a history of the program.  (The quotes against Social Security above were taken from that book.)

These days, the critics of Medicare have come around because it manifestly works.  Life expectancy for people who have reached the age of 65 has risen significantly.    America is no longer shamed by elderly Americans suffering for lack of medical care. 

Yet although America's elderly are now cared for, our children are not.  A Johns Hopkins study found that hospitalized children who are uninsured are 60 percent more likely to die that those with insurance, presumably because they are less likely to get preventive care and to be taken to the doctor when sick.  The study suggested that every year some 1,000 children may die as a consequence of lacking health insurance.

Why is it broadly accepted that the elderly should have universal health care, while it's immensely controversial to seek universal coverage for children?  What's the difference--except that health care for children is far cheaper?

Granted, there are problems in the House and Senate bills--in particular, they falter on cost-containment.  In the same way, there were many specific flaws in the Social Security and Medicare legislation, but, in retrospect, it's also clear that they were major advances for our nation.

It's now broadly apparent that those who opposed Social Security in 1935 and Medicare in 1965 were wrong in their fears and tried to obstruct a historical tide.  This year, the fate of health care will come down to a handful of members of Congress, including Senators Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu.  If they flinch and health reform fails, they'll be letting down their country at a crucial juncture.  They'll be on the wrong side of history.

Jumping Jack wrote on Nov 20^th, 2009 at 8:23am:



When did the idea that America cannot possibly accomplish ANYTHING, so why even try, become mistaken for patriotism? Because I assume that you, like your far more entertaining mentor who is pooting, I mean pouting across the street, think of yourselves as Patriots, far more so than those of us who think America CAN still accomplish great things.  It is sickening that your hatred for Obama is far stronger than your desire to support your own country.

Jesus Christ wrote on Nov 20^th, 2009 at 1:03pm:


Read his first line, and the answer is American voters... That is why Republicans lost it all, b/c they didn't protect us from attacks, rescue our own after a natural disaster or keep wall street in check and then be the ones who bailed them out...
what is the flu disaster, and how is a recomendation women only need to get fewer exams a govt. failure? Let's be real here, Republican are the people who are ashamed of womens bodies, publicly, and most of them are ashamed of any sexuality to the point of closeted deviant behavior after they spew family values... so try harder to convince me you really care about womens health, when the most extreme of your party would try to force a 13 year old rape victim to have a baby concieved during the crime...

Jumping Jack wrote on Nov 21^st, 2009 at 3:00pm:



he os doing a far better job than Bush, and is not only righting alot of his wrongs, he is doing things that are  morally principled for the good of people and country, not corporations and a select class with more money than 98% of the world. I do not have to agree with the liberal policies, and social agenda to still see what i consider vastly more important... real values, not talking points are far more important... better off? it's not about being better off, unless you one of those wealthy greedy types. It is about country as a whole and happiness... the one thing in the USA, we actually put in our constitution.... what makes humans happy? Well, if you're a person of religous faith, it is said, helping others and putting their welfare first, as long as your needs are met, is the path to happiness... It seems Republicans like to talk the talk, but not walk the walk... you want job creation, as long as your bottom line isn't hurt... how selfish! Isn't Riffy the one who always talks so large about how our troops sacrifice so much, how great they are? Everyone needs to sacrifice for the country, if not, then fuck off... Especially the wealthy, who got more finanacial assistance in this millenium than any other single class of people...

Posted by: lotsajizz Posted on: Today at 3:29pm
I'm better off....much better.....thank you Obama! 


Really? Why don't you tell us how you are much better off (specifics please) Do you pay taxes? Do you pay payroll taxes? Do you pay for your employee's health insurance? I do, and I'm sorry but Obama's not laying out anything positive to help small business. His policies will basically punish me for keeping Americans working. He was bought and sold by the unions, the main culprits as to why there are no jobs in this country.  When a union forces a company to pay an uneducated hillbilly 35.00/hr to clean toilets and take out the trash in a plant, how are they are they going to be competitive? They aren't.  One thing I've noticed from the liberals or "progressives" on this board is they never tell you why these policies are good for this country, you've just got to believe it.  I'm already seeing, as are many former Obama supporters, the policies he's laying out are a disaster waiting to happen. This tells me alot of you people who supported him aren't doing well in your chosen path. Sorry.....So tell me Mr. Jizz, how is "the chosen one's" policies going to pull the economy out of this mess? Specifics again, please.

http://i153.photobucket.com/albums/s209/leepullen/image004-1-3.jpgt=1258931347

Pdog wrote on Nov 22^nd, 2009 at 12:29pm:


Sounds sort of familiar, doesn't it Pdog?  Gee, who was it that always did that...  

Some Guy wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 6:02am:



Did you lose a lot of friends there?

Some Guy wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 6:02am:




I've done that in the past too - to keep an eye on the enemy, I told myself,  I would watch
a steady diet of Fox News. YIKES! It's not just the slanted coverage - not even just the
outright lies - it's EVERYTHING. You're bombarded with scary music and terrifying
graphics and on-air personalities CRYING, fer fuxsake. If you didn't speak the language
you'd swear the world was coming to an end tomorrow. And that stuff permeates the entire
country, so that there's a substratum of misinformed, terrified people running
around thinking that the Government has been taken over by Martians or something.


I'll tell you what really pisses Me off - it's the new public campaign of bumper stickers, etc,
that say "Pray For Obama - Psalm 109".  Are you all aware of this? Psalm 109 is subtitled
"A Cry for Vengeance".

Here's what that noted left-wing screed (NOT) USA Today had to say about that:


"Pray for Obama."

A kind and generous statement.

Or is it?


A crop of bumper stickers and T-shirts emblazoned with that call to prayer for the president have appeared for sale recently online through make-it-yourself outlets such as Zazzle.com and CafePress.com. And most of the "Pray for Obama" slogans are accompanied by a scripture reference: "Psalm 109:8."



In the New International Version translations, that verse reads;

May his days be few; may another take his place of leadership.

Aha! So, they're praying for Obama's tenure to be a short one. Fair enough. But what does that really mean?

A clue may be in the verses of the 109th Psalm that follow verse 8:


May his children be fatherless and his wife a widow.

May his children be wandering beggars; may they be driven from their ruined homes.

May a creditor seize all he has; may strangers plunder the fruits of his labor.

May no one extend kindness to him or take pity on his fatherless children.

May his descendants be cut off, their names blotted out from the next generation.

May the iniquity of his fathers be remembered before the Lord; may the sin of his mother never be blotted out.

May their sins always remain before the Lord, that he may cut off the memory of them from the earth.


In that context, are these folks actually urging us to pray for Obama's death?

(The crashing sound you just heard may have been Jesus hurling his stapler across the office in frustration.)

The Christian Science Monitor examined the latest anti-Obama sloganeering and asked, "Use of Psalm 109:8 funny or sinister?"

The Monitor piece continued:

The slogan comes at a time of heightened concern about anti-government anger. Earlier this year, the president's senior adviser, David Axelrod, said that Tea Parties could lead to something unhealthy. In September, authorities shut down a poll on Facebook asking if President Obama should be killed.

Still, that doesn't push the Psalms citation into the realm of hate speech, says Chris Hansen, a staff attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

The use of Psalm 109:8 is ambiguous as to whether its users are calling for the President to serve "only one term, or less than one term," he says.

Whether it's clever, funny or downright dangerous is a matter of opinion. Clearly, though, it's certainly not very nice.

There are "Pray for Obama" slogan products that bear an alternative scripture reference: 1 Timothy 2:1-2, which reads in the NIV:

I urge, then, first of all, that requests, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for everyone

For kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness.

Do you pray for Obama? If so, what do you pray, and how?

Some Guy wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 4:29pm:


moonie as jesus? can't be. if he were supernatural, he would have already found a way to keep the steelers from sucking worse than a cheap ho.

Pdog wrote on Nov 23^rd, 2009 at 6:45pm:


stonesalot, eh?

"Me and my partner fleabit built her straight out of scratch
And he rides with me from town to town
We only run for the money
got no strings attached
We shut `em up and then we shut `em down"

here he is at the altoona speedway...AKA "main street". the trophies were stolen from a bowling alley, except the one third from left that SS won for pee wee football in the fourth grade.