Tuesday, August 25

obama's bull****

They were wrong about the deficit.
They were wrong about unemployment.
They were wrong about the stimulus.
They said they weren't about the past, they were looking forward.

Another lie. None of this stuff was true. Nothing Obama says is true.

And they are STILL playing politics with America's national security.

115 Comments:

Blogger Chris said...

Let's see here. The deficit Obama inherited was the worst and highest ever, given to this great country by George Bush.

Unemployment numbers Obama inherited were the worst and highest this country had seen since the Great Depression; given to this great country by George Bush (the guy you voted for twice).

There would not have been any need for a stimulus had we not had 8 years of George Bush, or had he had any fiscal responsibility whatsoever. And the only thing in the past is the Republican Party. You lost. Get over it.

This whole blog has turned into one big American hate fest.

Interesting that while Bush more than doubled the very deficit you mention here, you never once said anything about it. Also interesting is that you never once said anything about losing 7 millions jobs a month under George Bush either. You never cared 8 months ago. But now you care. So unfortunate that you hate your country so much that you ignored everything you supposedly care about now.

1:03 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

Okay, Saul Alinsky.

Obama is Bush cubed (and counting) on spending.

Obama's projected budget deficit over 10 years is $9 trillion. Bush left office with a $1.6 trillion deficit.

I hate my country? Between the two of us, I'm a patriot and you've sided with the enemy.

1:39 PM  
Blogger Chris Barr said...

I can't think of anything more hate-filled than these last few posts you've put up about your president and your country. As always, people who don't agree with you and your Fox News world are the enemy. Any dissent at Bush was immediately labeled un-American. Even today, an incumbent Republican questioned the Attorney General's American-ness by saying he doesn't know who side he's on for wanting to investigate Bush-era torture.

You lost the election. Just get over it. Obama is not a fascist or a socialist or a foreign born enemy. Get over it.

Yet again, your conception of the past is but flawed. The $9 trillion debt your link is referring to is the national debt. Not the budget deficit. They are two different things. Bush's national debt was not $1.6 trillion. It was $10.6 trillion. We've been through this before, but you refuse anything that Rush Limbaugh doesn't tell you. Bush more than doubled the national debt and not one post from you. One can only assume that fiscal matters are only now a new found love for you.

I'm a patriot too. If I'm the enemy, bring it on. I dare ya to.

2:11 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

There you go again, making an ass out of yourself, assuming that you know what I watch and what I read.

I agree with Peter King. Holder and the Obama administration continue to give rights to Islamic terrorists and weaken national security. It's a fair question: Whose side are they on?

Obama has tripled all of the Bush spending. Ironically, the Democrats don't want to talk about spending anymore.

Hey, why don't you go watch some Teletubbies and update your blog with more juvenile crap?

2:29 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

You know, since you've declared me the enemy for saying your blog is one big American hate-fest, a comment I stand behind firmly, I'm going to ask what happened to not supporting your president is the same thing as giving support to the enemy? Or what about your glorious insight of how if you disagree with the president you should do it in private, that public disagreement only weakens us in the eyes of the enemy? What happened to all that Mr. Super Patriot Kent?

It seems you don't follow any of the standards you set for people who disagreed with Bush. In fact, you are the absolute epitome of everything you accused everyone else of doing. Supporting the president when Bush was in power was supporting your country. Obviously, since you are such a serious, tough, macho manly Republican, the same has to be true today.

C'mon Kent, let's do this.

2:31 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

I'll support my president all day long to a foreigner but to a fellow American... Our country was founded on the right to disagree with our government.

Funny. You were a Bush hater for eight years. Your party, the pathetic lying creeps Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Dick Durbin, and the rest of the sleaziest, scumbags ever to walk on the face of the earth called President Bush every name in the book, openly lied about his policies, played the hardest of hardball politics ever practiced, and now you have a problem with my dissent?

Meanwhile, it speaks volumes that you choose not to comment on the substance of my posts, instead choosing yet again to make George W. Bush the topic, an easy way for you to change the subject, away from Obama's falling poll numbers, away from ObamaCare, away from ACORN, away from Holder and the so-called "Justice" Department.

Bring it on? I already brought it. You must've blinked.

2:47 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

That's not at all what you said about Bush, not even close. You said all dissent should be made in private. Public dissent only strengthened our enemies. You say nothing about only witnessing before a foreigner.

I don't have a problem with your dissent. You have a problem with it. You claimed not supporting the president is the same thing as giving support to the enemy. You said it not me. You said it all should be done in private. I never said any of that. You can't live up to the standard you wanted everyone to follow for Bush. You said it, now follow it.

I can't speak on the substance of your post? Really? You must not have read my first comment that debunks everything you wrote. You can't even get your facts straight about Bush's national debt. You just make stuff up and then accuse me of not staying on topic.

I am on topic. So on topic that your blog burns with hypocrisy.

Let's do this Kent. C'mon. Why don't you explain how not supporting the president when Bush was in power was siding with enemy, but now your every post is a bash at the president. Don't run and hide. Let's do this. Let's go Super Patriot.

3:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chris' argument is precisely why the Dems are going to have a major problem in 2010 if they don't change their tune. Nobody buys the "Bush ran up deficits too!" argument when Obama has more than TRIPLED the deficit in however few months it's been. The average voter has the requisite number of brain cells to realize that Obama's deficit spending > Bush's deficit spending. And Bush had eight years to rack his up.

You may think that voters are stupid-- and, based on the President we have in the WH, I'd be inclined to agree-- but they seriously aren't THAT stupid. Ignore that and continue to use the lazy, stupid "Boosh did it 2!!!1" argument at your own peril.

3:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Bush left this nation in debt, broke, and broken. I've yet to see a single proposition by the Republicans on how they would fix it. instead all you hear is bs, racism, hate and lies. It seems they are the ones who hate this nation.

6:24 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

Predictably, you're taking me out of context, Chris. You're being disingenuous.

Dissent was wasn't what the Democrats did under Bush. It was undermining. Talking President Bush down in a time of war? The result? World opinion began to echo what the Democrats were saying. Word for word. The "Bush lied, people died" crap.

It was more than dissent and you know it. Apples and oranges. You can't compare.

Bush himself spoke eloquently about dissent. He never attacked his enemies, rather he talked up his opponents, embracing the right to free speech. He never whined about anything. Obama could take a lesson.

Disagreeing with Obama on domestic policy is another thing entirely.

You never heard me criticize opposition to Bush's domestic agenda. When stuff is onshore, between borders, the Prez is fair game.

Where has Obama embraced that same right to free speech? He isn't tolerating dissent. Instead people who oppose his bullshit health care reform, I mean, health insurance reform, are "nazis," "brownshirts," "astroturf."

You're not on topic about anything. All you wanna do is rehash your hatred of Bush.

Anonymous #1:

Exactly. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton. Did he bitch about it? Never. Obama's still griping about Bush eight months into his term. He's a pansy.

The absurdity of Chris is that he won't admit that Obama's tripled the deficit in eight months.

I don't think voters are stupid. I think we (the GOP) gave voters nothing to counter-balance Obama in 2008. McCain was a loser from the word go. Sarah Palin helped, but it wasn't enough.

What we're seeing has been interesting. So much for Obama's 'mandate,' huh? America remains a center-right country. But I'm not convinced the Democrats are headed for big mid-term election losses. It's more than a year away. A lot can happen.

Anonymous #2:

You'll recall the Bush economy was great up to 2006. Until the Democrats took over in January 2007. The Republicans have been in the Minority for two and a half years. And, according to you, it was Bush who left the nation 'in debt, broke and broken'?

You have no idea what you're talking about.

The 'bs, racism, hate and lies' are coming from the Democrats.

12:23 AM  
Blogger Jaz said...

First of all,

Both Anonymous' suck for being anonymous. One makes sense, and the other uses broken English (instead all you hear is bs, racism, hate and lies).

The initial anonymous is exactly correct. He/she sees that Chris' essential argument can be described in a nutshell as: My guy (Obama) may be flawed but so was his predecessor, so there.

That argument fails to address the substance of what is actually happening in the present moment. In other words, if someone was just born this instant and had an opinion about Obama, it would not be sufficient to merely say, "Well... Bush sucked too."

When Mitt Romney kicks Obama's ass in 2012, will the argument still be all about Bush?

Go ahead, keep working with the old paradigms and played-out arguments.

Some look to the future.

So there.

12:26 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

Kent, nothing is out of context. You can't reconcile what you said with how you are behaving today. You can't do it. Jaz can't do it. When Bush was in power, both of you, and I have no problems taking you both on-- I'm more than capable of doing it. But both of you wanted dissent to be silenced. You said it yourself. You said people who criticized the president were only aiding the enemy and any dissent should be made in private.

I don't know what planet you are on, but we are still in a time of war. Sadly, it's the very same wars from 2001 and 2003. Obama is a war president. And you just said taking a president down in a time of war only echoes throughout the world. President Obama is a war president, your words still hold true don't they?? Apparently only when Republicans are in power.

Bush had no domestic agenda. His only two successful items were NCLB and the huge government expansion program of Medicare. Just like you never mentioned anything about witnessing only to foreigners, you never mention anything about it only being in regards to foreign policy. Oh no, you plain as day said..

"If you aren't behind Bush and your country in this time in our history, then it means that you are against Bush, against your country, against your troops. It's very simple and true. And it's not debatable.

There's plenty of time to debate the merits of policy, the opinion of war, the opinion of Administration policy. But not now. If you are a Bush critic, understand that you are being anti-American and that you are very much aiding and abetting our enemies around the world.
"

You say nothing about it only pertaining to foreign policy. If you are against Bush you are anti-American. You said it. Now own up. Your entire blog now is one big American hate-fest just because you don't like the president. Something you would have called anti-American just 8 months ago.

Where has Obama called anyone a brownshirt or a nazi? How is he not allowing dissent? Tea bagging circle jerkers are proudly marching every chance they get, calling the president a socialist-nazi that wants to destroy America. How can you possibly say dissent is being hampered?

Own up.

7:39 AM  
Blogger Kent said...

Of course, dissent then was cool. Now dissent is bad. Health care protesters are the Taliban? C'mon.

The Right labeled Left wing protesters 'anti-American' because they opposed pro-American policies out of irrational hatred for Bush. It wasn't about policy, which is why it was illegitimate.

This time around, it's not about a man. It's the policies of Obama a growing number of Americans legitimately disagree with.

You continue to misrepresent Bush, his administration, my comments and historical facts of the years 2001-2008. And it's no wonder.

Since becoming President, Obama has:

Weakened the CIA and put foreign intelligence agencies on notice that they can't trust America.

Misrepresented America in Russia, Egypt, England, France, Germany and Latin America, apologizing for American exceptionalism as well as American military sacrifices and successes.

He has undermined US election law. Non-citizens can now register to vote in Georgia.

His Justice Department dismisses court cases against militant blacks and he's a racist, calling out a white cop just to protect his black friend.

He seeks to nationalize American health care, the ultimate Liberal power grab, yet his administration can't even manage 'Cash For Clunkers.'

He has weakened America's national security by gutting missile defense.

Libya acted in pure defiance of the United States, ignoring Obama's request with regard to the release of the Lockerbie bomber.

World leaders don't respect Obama. They know what a feckless coward he is.

And seven months in, the NYT reported on Monday, "Obama's team is lacking most of it's top players." Nice transition. Nice organization. Democrats, fail.

People in England tell me they are even feeling nostalgic for the Bush years because, while they didn't agree with him, they knew he was a man of action.

He's prematurely pulled some troops out of Iraq, which has resulted in increased violence, as Bush warned.

I'll use your phrase, even though it sounds dumb, own up. Own up Chris to the fact that you are now a completely crazed Left wing lunatic, unable to get away from, or talk about anything other than your extreme Bush fetish.

Don't ever come in here again with another anti-Bush rant as a way to direct attention AWAY from what Obama is doing. When Bush was in office, we talked about Bush. It's Obama's time now.

9:23 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

Kent, you are delusional. You can't reconcile your own words with your complete hate-fest today. It has really got to suck to live in your make-believe world.

It is entirely contextual to bring up your posts that say dissent is anti-American to have you reconcile that today with your writings about Obama. You can't possibly say what you said about Bush's presidency and expect someone not to make you own it.

Plain and simple. You want two different standards. One is a Fantasy. The other is a sickness. Own up Kent. I'm very capable of making you. Let's do this Kent. Own up.

9:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chris,

When will you take the responsibility in the deficit/mess our country had at the end of Bush's term (I am assuming that you were alive and an adult then) and at present?
.
If others can't blame Obama for the current deficit then you can't blame Bush for that at any time during his term. On the same token, if Bush can't be given credit for the boom during his term and the recovery of dot.com bust at the end of Clinton's term, Clinton can't claim credit for the boom during his. And Obama will not get credit for the turn around during his term. Except Washington, every President of this country thus far, inherited an economy from his predecessor. Why don't you and your President stop whining about inheritance? If the inheritance was rich and happiness, Obama would not have gotten the job.

Our country isn't autocratic. Nor is it dictatorial so a President can't do any thing. Have you forgotten that our founding fathers designed the three branches to prevent one person to wreck havoc on the country? Either you are going to admit that the three branches system was not and is not working (which means the Democrats controlling Congress during Bush's term (I know only in the last 2 years but I am using your method of reasoning here) were stupid)or you must admit that the blame cannot be laid at one person's feet--specifically Bush's.

And you, if you are not taking the share of blame in the recession then you will not contribute anything to the turn around. Then, ask yourself this: would a person of no worth to the society in which he lives deserve to live there?

I do hope you acquire some accountability, and send Obama a message (perhaps through the email account he set up for snitches)telling him to do the same and quit whining.

vnohara

10:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I meant to type happy, not happiness. Sorry. vnohara

10:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The Fold is right. Own it.

11:32 AM  
Blogger David Greenfield said...

Kent, just three minor points of clarification (of the many, many, many needed).

First, you said:
"And seven months in, the NYT reported on Monday, "Obama's team is lacking most of it's top players." Nice transition. Nice organization. Democrats, fail."

You are smart enough to understand that the republican have been holding up most of Obama's appointments, yes?

Also, that Obama at this point has already won confirmation for more top posts than Bush had at this point?

The NYT article you so kindly mention discusses both of those..

Second, you state: "Libya acted in pure defiance of the United States, ignoring Obama's request with regard to the release of the Lockerbie bomber." Really? Could you please explain how Libya acted in defiance? I don't think they control the Scottish courts yet, nor do we for that matter...

Finally, as for your statement "[w]hen Bush was in office, we talked about Bush." Really? You talked about him by saying we couldn't criticize him. That's it. Show me legitimate criticism of him by you please

12:19 PM  
Anonymous Matt said...

I stumbled into this blog by accident somehow, and I must say, it's quite amusing. I have to quote Barney Frank here: it's a tribute to the first amendment that this kind of vile, contemptible nonsense is so freely propagated.

12:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama can cut a lot of the deficit by just going back to the Bush-era budgeting gimmicks. I'm sure he can probably think up a few new ones too.

12:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cant make any sense of you Kent. You can't expect people to do one thing for Bush & other for Obama. People like you make me proud not to be a republican. It's important that this stuff is being pointed out. Because of your writings you have made yourself what you like least.

1:18 PM  
Blogger Jaz said...

I feel like Obama must vis a vis healthcare, this debate has gotten away from me.

1:36 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

Certainly I'm aware of the confirmation process, David. But the Democrats have huge majorities in Congress. Your argument doesn't fly.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/24/us/politics/24confirm.html

Re: My comments about Libya. Obama asked Libya not to make a public spectacle of the return of terrorist Abdel Baset al-Megrahi, yet they ignored the US President's request. That wouldn't happened with Bush, because they knew he was tough. The world knows Obama is a cowardly Democrat, so they're not afraid of him.

http://www.examiner.com/x-2547-Watchdog-Politics-Examiner~y2009m8d25-Libyan-terrorist-release-a-slap-in-Obamas-face

Re: Talking about Bush versus talking about Obama. I don't know how I can be any more clear. The hysterical reaction of the Left was never about policy. It was always hysteria easily traceable back to extreme hatred of the man.

Wiretapping? It was perfectly legal, yet many on the Left banged that drum, accusing Bush of violating civil liberties, even though it wasn't true. They bashed Bush for pure sport. It was never about policy, it was always about trying to weaken Bush, embarrass Bush, undermine Bush. All the Democrats did from 2002-2006 was lie about the Bush administration.

Contrast that with what's happening today. Those of us criticizing Obama are critical of his policies, not of the man himself. Big difference.

On this topic, there are not two standards for me. But, of course, there are two standards for Liberals, who couldn't insult Bush loud enough or often often. These same people now want complete and utter silent devotion and unity behind Obama, a guy hell bent on destroying our great country.

1:57 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

Matt,

The fact that you cite Barney Frank as a credible source tells me everything I need to know about you.

Debating you isn't worth the effort because you don't anything.

Frank is about 70% responsible for last year's economic meltdown, btw.

1:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

new here, never to return. comparing the economy that bush inherited, a huge budget surplus and a business cycle downswing, with what bush gave obama and this country this winter...GDP FELL 6.5%. Unemployment, trillion dollar bailouts, record foreclosures... but hey bush didnt complain? LMAO

2:39 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think I understand now:

Criticizing Bush = hysterical craziness that must be stopped.

Criticizing Obama = patriotic dissent of policy matters.

One more detail needed in this equation:

Kent = big, lying hypocrite

3:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

a guy who was in the minority in the house until the 2007 congress was sworn in, in the Senate's minority party as well, with a republican in the white house for the entire time was "70% responsible" for economy.

if not totally insane, that doesnt speak well for republican leadership...if it were totally insane that is.

3:11 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

C'mon Super Patriot Kent, let's do this. Own up. Your bit about Bush's opposition being about personal hatred and not policy related is sorely lacking just like your new interpretation of history is.

I'm a policy guy. I worked at a think tank for almost three years where I analyzed policy. From there I went to work for the senate where I actually wrote policy. I'm a policy person through and through. My disagreements with Bush were 99% policy related. His policies were horrible for this country. War without end, reckless spending, no domestic agenda, state-sanctioned torture, all of it was horrible for this country. Unlike you, I am absolutely a policy person.

Personally I like George Bush. The one and only time I met him I thought he was great. I would choose having a beer with him over Obama any day.

Your whole world is a Fantasy. It's really time to own it. Let's do this Kent. Call me an enemy again. Own it.

3:20 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

Anonymous #1. You are quite the simpleton. Bush inherited a recession from Clinton. He also inherited 9/11 from Clinton. (Clinton failed to capture Osama bin Laden because of 'jurisdictional issues.') Clinton also did nothing about Saddam and Iraq. That job was left to Bush.

Stupid people now play monday morning quarterback because it's easy and convenient. Bush is an easy target.

Anonymous #2: Legitimate policy criticism, totally fine. The Left did very little of that during Bush's two terms.

Anonymous #3: You need to brush up on your Barney Frank facts. The guy has held big time leadership/chairmanship/oversight positions on banking institutions for a long time. The Democrats own this financial crisis, but it doesn't get any media attention.

3:22 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

A check of the data shows GDP grew at a rate of over 2% during jan 2001. So bush inherited a growing economy, it never actually dipped into the negative from the research I just did. Evil Clinton grew the economy at record pace and didnt even have a war or deficit spending to inflate gdp, all this after truly inheriting a recession from Bush 1.

Clinton handed bush a surplus and growth. Bush gave Obama what economists wildly agreed was the second coming of the Great Depression. Thankfully the stock market is up 25% and we expect growth next quarter due to sound fiscal policy and adults being in charge. But yeah Obama is a pansy so its a wash in the end.

3:27 PM  
Blogger David Greenfield said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3:31 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Clinton also did nothing about Saddam and Iraq. That job was left to Bush."

You're right I forgot about that. I really am a simpleton. God bless you sir and yes, I really am gone now.

Chris I suspect your time is better spend with that unruly dining room table.

3:34 PM  
Blogger David Greenfield said...

Kent, yes, I can read the same NYT article you can, yet you seem unable to grasp it. here's a quote for you:

"Mr. Obama has a more intact national security team than his predecessor at this point"

here's another one

"And Republican senators are holding up nominees like John McHugh for Army secretary to influence what happens to the detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba."

So, you still want to say that Republicans are not holding up these confirmations, even when the very article you cite to as your reference says the opposite?

As for the Libya issue, you change your attack, and then cite to an op-ed as proof of your point. Op-eds are just that, opinions, not facts. Just because someone believes it was a slap that Libya welcomed him home, doesn't mean it is so. How have our relations with Libya been the last 10 years? If we were on such good terms with them that they would have listened to Bush, why did he put them on his axis of evil list?

As to wiretapping, way yet again to go off point. So, you say it's all about the policies of Obama you hate, while the Dems hated Bush the man. I'll echo Chris here, own up and say you like Obama the man, but that you disagree with his policies. Oh, and I repeat my request for you to show your legitimate criticism of Bush, which you so conveniently ignored while responding point by point to my other arguments.

3:37 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

There you go anon and Greenfield, make him own it. There's no reason why Kent shouldn't be held to the standard he set for everyone else when Bush was president. The only thing Kent can come up with is Bush was so great, the only reason people protested him was because of their personal hatred for the man. It's a pathetic excuse from someone who had no qualms questioning people's patriotism 8 months ago. Let's do this Kent, own it.

3:38 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

Why are none of you challenging me on the contents of this post?

Because you can't.

3:48 PM  
Blogger David Greenfield said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3:51 PM  
Blogger David Greenfield said...

anyways kent, there's no point in discussing this with you when you keep changing the issues and refuse to respond. It's like trying to have an intelligent discussion with an ADD 3 year old, you can't stay on point and respond to the discussion at hand. Great way to debate..

3:56 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

Surely, you're joking David.

You obviously don't understand what I mean by 'the post.' I mean the subject that you should be commenting on.

Here it is, in case you missed it:

"They were wrong about the deficit.
They were wrong about unemployment.
They were wrong about the stimulus.
They said they weren't about the past, they were looking forward.

Another lie. None of this stuff was true. Nothing Obama says is true.

And they are STILL playing politics with America's national security."

Try talking about that stuff instead of acting like the changing-subject-king, Chris.

4:03 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

Greenfield, you're right. It's like having a conversation with a 5th grader. Doesn't matter what you say, Kent can't live up to it. That doesn't mean he should be let off the hook on this.

Super Patriot, how in the world does this not have to do with your post? All the things you list in your post were inherited from Bush and you never once made a mention about them then. You never cared. But now you have a hate-fest going on. It is about your post. It's about your blog. It's about how you live in a Fantasy World but expect everyone else to bow down to whatever thought pops into your head at the moment. Own up to your very own logic Kent. You can't because if you do, your whole world melts away.

Keep changing subjects and talking about hatred and whatnot. Be a man, own it.

4:22 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

It sounds like you're describing yourself Chris, not me.

No hate here at all. You are lying. You can't debate this post. And it's funny.

Bush has nothing to do with Obama being wrong about the deficit.

Bush has nothing to do with Obama being wrong about unemployment.

Bush has nothing to do with Obama's remarks on the stimulus, or the Obama administration's handling of the stimulus.

Bush has nothing to do with Obama's decision to prosecute CIA agents.

And Bush has absolutely nothing to do with the Democrats' penchant for playing politics with America's national security.

Obama's failures on the above is THE SUBJECT OF THIS POST. The fact is, you can't debate me on those issues, so you bring up yet again Bush.

Saul Alinksy tactics. It's pathetic. And obvious. And easily defeated. Sadly for you, Bush is not the subject anymore.

4:33 PM  
Blogger mrf said...

Anyone trying to reasonably argue with Kent and Kompany should forget it. Harkening back to the "Bush era" one more time, Ken probably attended an event where Dixie Chicks CDs were burned or run over with monster trucks after Natalie Maines criticized the president.

5:37 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

5:53 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

MRF is such a brainiac he's unable to correctly spell my name twice in the course of two badly formed sentences.

For the record, not a country music fan. And also for the record, the Dixie Chicks did EXACTLY what I'm talking about, criticizing Bush FROM LONDON just because they knew it was popular and would elicit a positive reaction from the crowd.

Had they said "We're ashamed that the President of the United States is from Texas" within the confines of the United States, I wouldn't have had a problem with it.

I do have a problem with Liberals like MRF who choose to demean people with whom they disagree by categorizing. Disagree with me, I must be a dumb, hick, redneck who drives a monster truck, right?

Btw, STILL nobody to dispute my post, I see.

5:58 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

Kent, nobody to dispute your post? You can't argue Fantasy World Kent. This whole comment section is a dispute of your post. You are a total moron.

Not one time did you ever write about the deficit, unemployment or any of the other things you mention on the main page, while Bush was president. But now you all of a sudden-- with your hate-fest-- you care. Well, the deficit and unemployment didn't just appear after Bush left office. The deficit more than doubled under the Republican administration and unemployment was a loss of 700,000 jobs a month. You never once cared then. You called any criticism of that stuff anti-American and aiding the enemy. Now you gladly print such items on your front page. What is there possibly to "dispute?" Your entire blog is a fabrication of everything you fail to live up to.

You are a total moron. You have changed your story nearly every reply you make here. Own it Kent. You can't live up to the standard you set for everyone else. Reconcile your Bush standards with how you behave today. Own it.

6:43 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

You're funny. You have completely topped yourself today. Nobody disputed this post, least of all you, Brainiac.

Whatever you think of my posts from 2004 to the present, it is simply impossible to not recognize the following:

Obama owns the deficit.
Obama owns unemployment.
Obama owns the stimulus.
Obama owns this shameful decision to prosecute the CIA.
Obama owns the weakening of America's national security.

All of this stuff is happening on Obama's watch. All of this stuff is the result of direct actions and decisions made by President Obama.

Actions and decisions made by Obama have tripled the deficit, have extended the number of unemployed Americans, has badly mishandled the stimulus. Now Obama is now lying about the CIA and is placing the nation is great jeopardy.

Obama has been the President for eight months. He owns it now. He's owned it since January 20.

Lummox.

7:11 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

Let's go Super Patriot. Show me where you wrote about the deficit or about unemployment before Jan. 20. Show me where you cared then?

Even though there's no reason to go through this again with you because you have the mental aptitude of a 5th grader, I'll do it once more, with feeling. What I write won't jive with your Fantasy World even though I'll supply actual government links.

Obama has not tripled the deficit. You are lying. I firmly believe you have no clue about anything you talk about. The deficit was $4.9 trillion when Bush took office. It was $10.7 trillion when he left. He more than doubled it. The current deficit is $11.3 trillion. Read it all right here genius boy. Obama has not tripled the deficit. You are a total moron. Just quit making stuff up and own it.

Unemployment has dropped from 700,000 a month to under 500,000. In other words, unemployment is getting better now that Obama is president. You never once wrote anything about Bush losing 700,000 jobs every month. Own it.

There would not have been a need for a stimulus if not for 8 years of Bush. Own it.

Invading a country that had nothing to do with the attacks of 9/11 weakened our national security more than anything. Own it.

Not prosecuting people for state-sanctioned torture is shameful. Own it.

I fully understand this isn't going to register in your Republican Fantasy World. You'll deny it, say something about Bush hatred and then continue to do the very things you called anti-American just 8 months ago. It's a sadistic failure of the entire GOP. You will own it.

There's no reason to let your past comments about dissension off the hook. You can't live up to your own standard. Call me an enemy again Patriot Boy. Let's make this happen. Own it tea bagger.

7:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Obama owns unemployment? Its a lagging indicator of economic growth, which was -6.5 when he took over and now post stimulus has become basically 0 and will grow next quarter...employment follows economic growth I assume I am talking to a person with econ 101 knowledge. So Obama owns the lagging indicator of unemployment on 8-26 but Clinton owns 9-11 which occured if memory serves...on 9-11.

Do you have ANY sense of fair play and decency? (im back btw) Do you understand that Bush +2.2 growth on Jan 01 and Obama -6.5 on Jan 09, isnt "well Bush got a recession too and he didnt whine like a...wat wuz it...pansy i dunno, i dunno. Really pal...get ur head outta ur ass.

"Bin Laden determined to strike in America" Bush got this on 8-19. Yet the lagging indicator of employment is Obama's fault on 8-26. At long last sir have u no sense of decency (and its been 3 hours since i met u!! lol)

7:51 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Exhausting read thru but worth it. Can't believe people think like Kent. Glad I found this post. I will share with how not to be an American crowd. Reminds me of a child that didn't get his way. Or maybe kents a her?.?

7:54 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

You'll excuse me if I don't take too seriously the comments of the Anonymous people. It takes a lot of cowardice to criticize me without putting your names and your URL's out there.

Chris, congratulations. You've done something I didn't believe possible. You are a bigger nag than my Mother. God bless her.

8:11 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

Nag,

You obviously missed this. Nearly quadrupled. I was wrong. First time today.

http://rightfromleft.blogspot.com/2009/08/growing-deficit.html#links

8:24 PM  
Blogger Jaz said...

If you think this is a lot of reading, imagine reading one of the gargantuan spending bills or Obama-care bills that The Left is attempting to cram down America's throat.

We don't want it.

Check the poll numbers!

Even The Left is starting to become aware that some rethinking of strategy is in order.

8:38 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"It takes a lot of cowardice to criticize me without putting your names and your URL's out there"

as if it takes a lot of courage to criticize "kent" and post 2001 GDP stats. TPM i think led me to chris who linked me to u. U seem to lack the necessary faculties to go far in the world of thought. and u lack the heart to go far in the world beyond thought. as far as me, i'll post a pic of my cok i dont give s shite it just takes time to register and again frankly i dont take u seriously as an evolved human being.

8:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Check the poll numbers!
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/08/how-to-poll-on-public-option.html

8:53 PM  
Blogger David Greenfield said...

kent, i'll take on your posts randomly one by one to see if you'll respond that way

"They were wrong about the stimulus."
to prove your point, you cite to a salon article which links to a poll saying that 57% of the US thinks the stimulus has either had no effect or a negative effect on the economy, while only 41% believe it's improved he economy.
Of course, the same poll also states that 41% think the stimulus has made the economy better, while only 24% think it's made it worse.
But, your link to a poll is proof the stimulus has failed.
Of course, 20% of people in the US believe that the sun revolves around the earth. Does that make it so?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?_r=1&ex=1183780800&en=e3760aa7d1b5022a&ei=5070

And we could also easily cite to a poll that says more than 50% of the country does not believe in evolution; so evolution clearly didn't happen either by your logic.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

Now, when i'm looking at sciency things like economics, I tend to go for facts. Numbers are good too. How's consumer confidence doing lately? How about that Dow? Corporate earnings? Durable goods orders?

Now, you wanna respond to one of my questions? Show me your legitimate criticism of Bush.

9:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Holder and the Obama administration continue to give rights to Islamic terrorists and weaken national security. "

That is the dumbest shit I've ever read.

-RB

9:19 PM  
Blogger RedneckBob said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

9:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Chris took a massive dump on Super Patriot's chest.

:>)

-RB

9:24 PM  
Blogger Jaz said...

What does this horde of libs think of Glenn Beck, I wonder.

Forget putting a caterpillar in close proximity to someone, putting these Kool-Aid drinkers in a room where an endless loop of Glenn Beck is playing might come close to constituting torture.

I'm not a big GB fan but that he must annoy these neo-hippies to no end makes me appreciate him.

Glenn Beck is to libs as garlic is to vampires.

11:36 PM  
Blogger Jaz said...

Calling Liberals by their own name -Liberals- always has that sort of Rumpelstiltskin effect.

12:11 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

Super Patriot, it's not quadrupled. You are a moron. Your link measures over a 10 year period. Not current status. If everything stays the same, then in ten years it could. But right now Obama has not tripled or quadrupled anything. You have nothing Kent. Your whole world is made up of Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh talking points.

I'll take nagging as your way of saying I'm right. Pointing out your blatant hypocrisy which has now resulted in a complete American hate-fest on your part, is nagging. Some would call it consistency or reality, but you call it nagging. Same difference. Own it.

Greenfield, great job. Make him own it. It's apparent he can't live up to his own standard. Never one time did he address the deficit or unemployment or gas prices while Bush was president. It's like a rebirth for him. He actually cares about America all of a sudden.

6:33 AM  
Blogger RedneckBob said...

"What does this horde of libs think of Glenn Beck, I wonder."

I think Glen "Chicken Little" Beck is an excellent entertainer, but I'm terrified of those who perceive his show as news built off facts and journalist integrity. Add up his intellectual dishonesty, racist tones, and crying on air and you'll have a rating bonanza for those hypocritical cuckoo clock wingnut righties seeking the truth.

Just how dishonest is Beck? Take a look at his views on heathcare. Just a few years back he thought the American healthecare system sucked and wanted to sue them. Now, he thinks it is the best and wants tort reform. What an amazing recovery for the healthcare system in America!

- http://www.indecisionforever.com/2009/08/14/jon-stewart-owns-glenn-beck-on-healthcare-hypocrisy/

OWN IT BECK.

PS - he gets the moniker "Chicken Little" because every single day the sky is falling.

8:00 AM  
Blogger Kent said...

WSJ this morning: "Obama Can No Longer Pass Buck on Economy."

Congrats, Chris. You're wrong again.

online.wsj.com/article/SB125131495330361389.html

8:05 AM  
Blogger David Greenfield said...

Kent, you ignore my post and Chris's post, then again cite to an op-ed to prove your point.
Op-eds are not facts, they're opinions, so if I write an op-ed saying evolution isn't true, that makes it so from your logic.

8:25 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

Super Patriot, that link says nothing about Obama quadrupling the deficit. It says nothing at all. The president has already said give him the economy, he'll take it. That doesn't mean he's the cause of it, but that he'll gladly take the responsibility away from the people who nearly destroyed the economy.

Once again you dip into your Murdoch-owned media. Your entire world is built around Fox News talking points. And once again, instead of proving me wrong, you prove just how moronic you really are. It's really gotta suck being you.

8:31 AM  
Blogger RedneckBob said...

Kent,

I have to be honest with you here. I spent the morning reading through your blog and most of your posts before finally coming to the conclusion that you're completely delusional or you're being paid.

Time to fess up.

Is someone paying you to create this political hyperbole or is this horrible mess something that you've created with your own free time?

Thanks,

-RB

PS - PLEASE, Please, please tell me that you're being paid as that will leave me with some hope that you possess the cognitive ability to perform a minimal amount of critical thinking.

PSS - As to the deficit, take a look at these:

- Breakdown of deficit changes over time
- A pie chart based off those numbers that even you can comprehend

8:53 AM  
Blogger Kent said...

Redneck,

We have some in common because I think you're delusional.

You found it amusing that I believe Obama is weakening national security.

Maybe you should give this a read.

online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574374500451334282.html

9:09 AM  
Blogger Kent said...

David,

To answer your question about my problems with Bush over the years.

I disagreed with Bush signing campaign finance reform.

I disagreed with wasting six months at the United Nations before invading Iraq.

I disagreed with the prescription drug benefit.

I disagreed with the communications strategy of the Bush White House. They didn't have one.

I disagreed about the whole 'New tone' bullshit that Bush came to Washington touting. I always thought he should have been a bare knuckled partisan, tougher on his enemies.

I disagreed with the appointments of certain people to cabinets posts, particularly Paul O'Neill, Colin Powell and Norm Mineta.

I don't recall if I blogged about all or these, or some of these. I started this blog in 2004, so...

I did disagree with Bush and the GOP on the level of Congressional spending and I thought I blogged about it, but I can't find the post, so I guess I didn't. But I disagreed with the earmarks. I just didn't publicize it.

By the way, all we have is our opinions. That's what blogging is all about.

9:23 AM  
Blogger David Greenfield said...

Kent,
you asked me to respond to your initial post, so I did, yet you refuse to respond to me and keep changing then topic.

You counter Redneck Bob's post on the deficit with an op-ed discussing national security.

A little dishonest I have to say.
You refuse to answer the questions at hand or respond to the issues being discussed.

As you have yet again cited to an op-ed, could you also please let us know whether you believe op-eds are facts or opinions? (and please don't cite to another op-ed as a response to this post- it honestly makes you look silly).

9:25 AM  
Blogger David Greenfield said...

You disagreed with Bush, but you didn't blog about it, because that would have voicing your disagreement publicly, which according to you sides you with the enemy.

That's your point (I think?), but yet you're criticizing the current admin publicly?

And yes, if you started this on 2004, that gives you 4 years worth of material to find legitimate criticism of Bush. You need a larger time frame or something? I can find it pretty easy in about 1 days worth of your posts for Obama..

More intellectual dishonesty, why am I not surprised. You add nothing to any real debate..

9:30 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

Redneck, that's hilarious! Own it Kent. Just own it.

Lookey, lookey Kent once again points to a WSJ opinion piece to prove his point only to actually prove how moronic he is. Is there anything in your world that is not controlled by Fox News??

Your opinions my dearest Kent were along the lines that dissent should be done in private because public dissent was anti-American. That's your creed. You said it. Now own it.

Greenfield is right. You add nothing to the debate, but you will own it.

9:54 AM  
Blogger Jaz said...

Oh yeah, that tactics of trying to vilify the town hall meeting protesters is working real well for y'all.

You'll find that making the American people the villain doesn't work as well as making the Clintons the enemy as Barack was able to do during the campaign.

Barack Obama is Chicago style politics brought to DC, nothing more.

"Never let a crisis go to waste."

Well, we're seeing that essentially strategy played out on a national stage while we attempt to fight two wars and a super recession.

This whole thing is going down unless Obama does some serious rethinking.

Here's two ideas that would win support from normal non far left Americans:

1. Include tort reform in any healthcare reform. (Really, would it kill you to not blatantly pander to the trial lawyers lobby for once?)

2. Announce that after further review we have to keep Gitmo open after all. (believe me, it won't be the first flip-flop for the Bamster, so get over it).

Writhe and recoil at these ideas if you must Lefty legions, but Obama may yet get smart and do these things in order to co-opt and thereby break down the opposition.

If not it makes it very easy for Republicans to continue a wholesale blockade of his agenda.

Which you might think doesn't matter until you realize that the Dems have the votes to pass healthcare reform without Republican support but have yet to do so.

10:41 AM  
Blogger Jaz said...

Oh and to be clear, I'm addressing my comment to Chris, David Greenfield, Redneck Bob, or any other of the various assorted lefties that have commented here.

11:00 AM  
Blogger RedneckBob said...

The "war on terror" was one gigantic scam hoisted on the fragile American public post 9/11 by opportunistic "chicken hawks", specifically the invasion and occupation of Iraq. We now know, with 100% certainty, that plans to invade Iraq were on the table prior to 9/11 and the reasons to wage war were fabricated or cherry picked from Cheny's personal shadow intelligence agency.

We also know that:

- No WMDs were present
- No reconstituted nuclear programs existed regardless of the forged "yellow cake" documents
- No biological weapons existed at all
- No ties to Al Queda at all.

Now we have:
- Spent close to $1T on foreign soil.
- Killed more Americans than OBL.
- Over 29M Iraqis on the American welfare system.
- Destroyed and rebuilt a country's infrastructure while our own crumbles. Bridges, roads, air ports, hospitals, water/swear systems, electrical systems, etc, etc.
- Destroyed a country's history from ancient mosques, museums, to nations treasures.
- Billions and billions of our tax dollars disappeared in thin air.
- Global reputation tarnished by our heinous torture policies.
- Tens of thousands of innocent Iraqi citizens killed.
- American rights violated by an overaggressive domestic surveillance program.

What an odd way to increase our national security and all of this was absolutely and completely unnecessary to capture and kill the 100 or so guys who perpetuated 9/11.

Obama has continued some of Bush's ignorant and damaging foreign policies. He should exit Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, close all bases and embassies, and focus on a strong national defense and develop a solid policy of nonintervention.

We have no business occupying two foreign nations which incite hatred and breeds future terrorists which will eventually attack us. Not to mention that we can no longer afford such ridiculous activities.

-RB

11:11 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

Let's do this Jaz. I dare ya.

Your comment is just as worthless as Kent's failure to reconcile his current behavior with his past.

We are fighting two wars and a super recession because of George Bush and the Republican party. Let's not confuse things. The situation this country faces today was handed to us by your Party. There's no reason to now think the GOP can get us out of it. The last 8 years were a failure. We'll fight two ongoing wars and the recession, Obama has no choice. But don't attempt to fog the message by acting like we just now got to two wars and a recession. Own it Jaz. You were there right along with Kent cheering on his chest-thumping tirade about any dissent being anti-American. Just own it.

Tea baggers are not representative of a majority of Americans. They don't even know what they are there to protest or disrupt. Most are Medicare recipients while others are just mad the Repubs lost. There were 4 million people at Obama's inauguration. Remember that next time a handful of tea baggers show up to slap nut sacks.

11:14 AM  
Blogger RedneckBob said...

"Never let a crisis go to waste."

In using 9/11 as a reason to invade and occupy a foreign country?

11:20 AM  
Blogger RedneckBob said...

1. Include tort reform in any healthcare reform. (Really, would it kill you to not blatantly pander to the trial lawyers lobby for once?)

Chase that Red Herring:

Medical malpractice premiums are less than one-half of one percent of the country’s overall health care costs; medical malpractice claims are a mere one-fifth of one percent of health care costs.

• Medical malpractice premiums, inflation-adjusted, are nearly the lowest they have been in 30 years.

• Medical malpractice claims, inflation-adjusted, are dropping significantly, down 45 percent since 2000.

• Medical malpractice premiums are less than one-half of one percent of the country’s overall health care costs; medical malpractice claims are a mere one-fifth of one percent of health care costs. In over 30 years, premiums and claims have never been greater than 1% of our nation’s health care costs.

• Medical malpractice insurer profits are higher than the rest of the property casualty industry, which has been remarkably profitable over the last five years.

• The periodic premium spikes that doctors experience, as they did from 2002 until 2005, are not related to claims but to the economic cycle of insurers and to drops in investment income.

• Many states that have resisted enacting severe restrictions on injured patients’ legal rights experienced rate changes (i.e., premium increases or decreases for doctors) similar to those in states that enacted severe restrictions on patients’ rights, i.e., there is no correlation between "tort reform" and insurance rates for doctors.

-RB

11:25 AM  
Blogger RedneckBob said...

Tea baggers are not representative of a majority of Americans. They don't even know what they are there to protest or disrupt. Most are Medicare recipients while others are just mad the Repubs lost.

Chris, in one town hall meeting some old fart knocker stood up and yelled "Keep government out of my Medicare". I almost fell out of my desk chair in horror.

On a side note, you may find this chart interesting.

Who's paying to kill healtchare reform

Note the funding and organizational structure for Americans for Prosperity and FreedomWorks. Hardly "grassroots" organizations.

-RB

11:46 AM  
Blogger Jaz said...

"Remember that next time a handful of tea baggers show up to slap nut sacks." -Chris

This is why we call you Saul Alinsky. All you really have is insults and slander when you disagree with someone. Alinksy 101: attack, marginalize, and then dismiss.

You can't explain why your side just doesn't ram through healthcare reform without Repub support so you're left to simply assume that anyone who disagrees with the Bamster is the product of some nefarious influence or can be somehow otherwise dismissed.

Rather convenient to be able to simply dismiss those who disagree with you. It's never that perhaps people have legitimate substantive philosophical disagreements.

Why try to win the the argument through persuasion when you can just dismiss the opposition I guess.

As far as 'owning it' as you keep harping on I'll own it. I'm not a registered Republican but if voting for Bush over Kerry requires owning it then I'll gladly own it.

But this "owning it" business is just a tactic you're using to help you dismiss any argument that doesn't emanate from your side of the aisle.

No matter how legit the argument is, if you can associate the person making the argument somehow with something you're able to dismiss then wham, in your mind you've won the argument.

This is straight out of the Saul Alinksy playbook 'Rules for Radicals'. The primary teaching of which seems to be "Why win an argument through logical persuasion when you can subvert it?"

When you attack and attempt to marginalize the person or people making an argument you disagree with rather than tackling the actual difficult questions involved you have, to my way of thinking, lost the argument.

Here's an idea. Try focusing on the substance of the merits of the issue at hand rather than either attacking the person making the argument or attempting to in some way associate them with something that you regard as dismissible.

So far your argument here is to say: Bush= bad, if you voted for Bush, I don't have to listen to anything you say.

I know that you're capable of making a more sophisticated argument than that.

11:46 AM  
Blogger Jaz said...

Redneck,

I guess you miss the point of triangulation. Ever heard of it? My guess is no.

I don't have to even get into debunking your list of claims here that attempt to argue that no form of tort reform is needed at all.

The simple fact is that if Obama can include it he may win some Republican support thereby co-opting and dividing his opposition.

Not to give your side any ideas or anything.

BTW, you seem more like a Ron Paul isolationist in your foreign policy outlook. Are you sure you're a lefty? Maybe you're a Dennis Kucinich guy. I can respect that.

11:53 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

Call me whatever you like Jaz. I don't even know who Saul Alinsky even is. Never even heard of that name.

There is no doubt logistically speaking the Dems could easily ram through any legislation they wanted. But in terms of health care, I can't think of any reason why it hasn't been done already. I'm sure tea baggers calling the president a foreign-born enemy that wants to setup death panels and build concentration camps to house Christians and conservatives has nothing to do with it. Yeah, I'm sure that hasn't slowed the legislative process down one bit.

If there is any side resorting to name calling or untruths one needn't look any further than the current motivated faction of the Republican Party. Beginning the health care debate with "basic sanity" that the president wasn't born in Kenya and doesn't want to kill old people goes a long way.

This also isn't about voting for Bush or not. That really has nothing to do with it. It has to do with Kent, and you cheering him on, that dissent should be done in private because if done in public it's anti-American.

If you have followed the least bit of this thread you will easily see there is no subversion. Kent's claims that Obama has tripled/quadrupled the deficit and whatever other lies he's spreading have been clearly rebutted in many of my comments. You can't possibly suggest that I haven't addressed his lies through persuasion. I give direct links to government cites easily proving he's lying.

The only thing you can ever say, and really the only thing you ever say, is that I'm attacking or subverting rather than addressing it head on. I don't know how more head on I can get by asking Kent to reconcile his now American hate-fest with his words condemning anyone who disagreed with Bush as anti-American. You even commented the day he wrote it. You were there with him cheering on his denunciation of all things "anti." Own it Jaz.

If "attacking" is asking Kent to reconcile his past with the present, then I'll keep attacking. But somehow, like you always, always, always, do, you want the past never mentioned and if it is, it's "attacking." Own it Jaz. I'm not just going to let Kent and you get away with it. Call me whatever you want, but the fact of the matter is both of you have become the very things you claimed to anti-American just 8 months ago.

Address it head on or however you want to deal with it but you can't read through this thread and not conclude Kent's assertions have been dealt with directly and substantially. The result might not coincide with y'alls Fantasy World but that's a matter for you two to work out on your own.

12:21 PM  
Blogger RedneckBob said...

I don't have to even get into debunking your list of claims here that attempt to argue that no form of tort reform is needed at all.

I never claimed that tort reform wasn't needed, I'm just pointing that it has a negligible cost on healthcare. I can think of a minimum of ten issues that carry far more importance, so if I can do that, I'm sure the Republicans can too.

And, honestly? I can't see the Republicans backing Obama on anything at this stage in the game. In fact, I've seen many of them contradict themselves just to counter Obama.

If they Republican's were serious about healthecare costs, they would:

- Propose that the clause in Medicare Part-D law that makes it illegal for the government to negotiate drug prices gets removed. The Republicans passed the largest piece of "socialized medicine" in the last 25 years, BTW, and it added a $1T burden on Medicare.

- Remove perverse incentives - If your Dr. can get you to lose 20 lbs, he gets a bonus. If your Dr. can get you to stop smoking, he gets a bonus. Right now he makes money by bringing you back into the office for additional visits. France does this and it works well.

- Pooling - Allow hundreds of thousands of citizens to join in a plan that will take advantage of volume discounts; from medical procedures to drugs prices. This works in all other industries; from cell phones to computers. As it stands now, I can't cross State lines to buy insurance in a market that is substantially cheaper than my local market. Promote, not restrict, the free market.

- Technology - currently we spend over 30% of our healthcare dollars on administration. Insurance forms, sharing of medical information, claims filings, etc, etc. Taiwan spends 2%. Yes, two percent.

Actually, now that I think about it, what exactly have the Republicans proposed to reduce healthcare costs?

-RB

PS - isolationism is not equal to a noninterventionism

1:02 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

Good job RB. Make them own it.

"Actually, now that I think about it, what exactly have the Republicans proposed to reduce healthcare costs?"

That's the whole point. Nothing is the answer. Unless you want to consider this from chairman Steele as their answer.

1:49 PM  
Blogger RedneckBob said...

Two more comments:

- The cost of doing nothing - We're experiencing this now. Healthcare reform should have happened in the mid to late 90s and it must happen now or in the next 10 years we'll see "5 TRILLION TO BAIL OUT HEALTHCARE INDUSTRY". Double digit premium increases simply cannot be sustained and practically all our current social programs are going broke. This bubble, much like the internet bubble in 2000 and the housing bubble in 2007, will eventually collapse.

- Free Market - The "free market" is responsible for the current healthcare crisis, so I shudder when I hear "free market" as a solution. Regulation should create a market that caters to the tax paying citizen, not to for profit corporations. The CEO of United Health Group made over $3M last year all the while his company was denying coverage which killed citizens, raised delectables, and canceled policies for those no longer deemed "fit" for care which forced them into bankruptcy because they needed life saving procedures.

Other capitalist democracies can provide healthcare to ALL of it's citizens for roughly half the cost, so why can't America do the same?

-RB

4:54 PM  
Blogger Jaz said...

"If there is any side resorting to name calling or untruths one needn't look any further than the current motivated faction of the Republican Party. Beginning the health care debate with "basic sanity" that the president wasn't born in Kenya and doesn't want to kill old people goes a long way."

This kind of whining about "birthers" and "death panels" is a boring complaint libs make to marginalize legitimate concerns. Anyone who has a legit problem with the healthcare cram down is some kind of wack job and therefore need not be taken seriously.

As far as cheering on the notion that dissent should be silenced, you'll have to provide more evidence that I believe that than a one word comment signifying that I liked what I was reading.

But I don't have to distance myself from anything Kent said either because in this ridiculous complaint of yours that we're applying a double standard regarding dissent, the same could be said of you.

For 8 years we were told that dissent is the highest form of patriotism and now that the dissent is against your guy the dissenters are to be scorned, lampooned, dismissed, or considered insignificant.

Preacher, heal thyself. If Kent is applying a double standard, then so are y'all. That's politics I guess.

As far as Republican alternatives to Obama-care, I love how, as far as you are concerned, simply because you two lefties are not aware of Republican alternative ideas, they must not exist.

Ever heard of Charles Krauthammer? Probably not.

But I'd be for scrapping everything you two are promoting and doing what he suggests:

read this

5:03 PM  
Blogger David Greenfield said...

Yes Jaz,
two ideas: tort reform and severing the link between health insurance and employment.
you go, that's a great plan and will fix everything
how about Steele's plan? Two parts: 1) scrap medicare, it's horrible and doesn't work.
2) save medicare, it's fundamental to this country

that's a good plan too

5:16 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

Whining about birthers and tea baggers? You wish. That's all your party has are tea baggers telling lies about killing old people. Keep slapping nut sacks with them Jaz.

Well if you disagreed with Kent, you sure didn't speak up. In fact you wanted to debate some dude that obviously disagreed with what Kent was writing. You sought to it to defend Kent, just like you're doing now. Own it Jaz. You patted Kent on the back, cheered on his chest-thumping tough guy talk and you liked what you read so much that you challenged a dissenter. Own it.

It seems the wonderfully wise Jaz is also just making stuff up. The argument I'm using with Kent and you cannot be applied to me. I say right here plain as day that Kent can criticize the president all day long. I don't discourage it at all. You both can do whatever you want. All I'm doing is pointing out blatant hypocrisy that burns to the core everything you both stand for. I will make you own it.

Dissent all you want, I know you will. I'll never say the things Kent did about disagreeing with the president. What I will do is point out to both of you, you have become the very things you called anti-American 8 months ago. That's what this is all about.

For health care, your op-ed guy is not a Republican in Congress. His op-eds are not plans. I can't believe I'm actually debating a guy that thinks op-ed pieces are "real plans." I've really sunk low since my days of working for the senate, wow. Krauthammer can write a novel as far as I'm concerned, but opposition health care "ideas" are laid out in legislative committees not in newspapers. Where is the Republican alternative bill? Where is the Republican plan? There isn't one. It takes a special kind of dumb to link to a newspaper opinion piece and suggest it's the rebuttal to my criticism of the lack of a Republican plan. Amazing.

6:53 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

Not hiding, David. Just enjoying all the comments and discussion on my blog.

I gotta tell you the best part of all 87 comments thus far is the claim by Chris that he doesn't "know who Saul Alinsky even is." He's "never even heard of that name."

Sounds pretty far fetched to me, but you never know with Chris.

11:22 PM  
Blogger Jaz said...

You make my argument about your tactics well for me, Chris.

Where did I claim to be presenting alternative health care legislation?

I quite clearly was presenting alternative "ideas".

But if you want alternative legislation then try this:

H.R. 2355 and S.1015

I think your point in saying that the Republicans are bereft of ideas when it comes to alternative solutions to healthcare is based on the fact the you personally are not aware of any such solutions.

By any standard of logic that's a fairly limited view of the situation.

A biased opinion backed up supposedly by a constant attempt to discredit or dismiss your opposition.

12:49 AM  
Blogger Jaz said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

1:08 AM  
Blogger Jaz said...

And yes, Greenfield.

A few simple ideas of reform that make sense and that Americans understand might be worth doing.

The Rube Goldberg approach of creating layers and layers of arbitrary regulatory nonsense and then claiming it will cut costs while at the same covering millions of more Americans for free is not something people are buying and therefore it will never work.

Have you dudes on the Left even figured out yet whether or not a "public option" is an essential part of reform?

Let us know when you figure that one out and then ram the legislation through already with no Republican support if its such a swell idea.

I'm happy to hang all these bad policies around Obama's neck. Let's get this era over with, The Opacity of Hope or whatever.

1:17 AM  
Blogger Jaz said...

Rules For Radicals

Rule 11:

"Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame."

From Rules For Radicals by Saul Alinksy, one of Obama's philosophical mentors and the original "community organizer".

2:37 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

I promise I have no idea who Saul is. I think I've seen Jaz write about him before, but I couldn't tell you one thing about him.

My dearest Jaz. Opinion pieces in newspapers are not legislative ideas. And HR 2355 died in 2007. All it did was allow insurance companies to go across state lines. That's not health care reform. Nor is it a current piece of legislation. If it's such a great idea, why don't the mighty Repubs enter it again??? Personally not aware of any such solutions? Your dead bill would solve nothing. My tactics still would like a current alternative proposal from the Republican Party that doesn't involve birthers, tea baggers or death panels-- oh yeah and opinion pieces in newspapers.

7:10 AM  
Blogger Anthe said...

Zzzzzzzzzzz....this is pertrifying. Literally. You're arguments are so old and worn out they've pretty much turned to stone. Get some new life flowing into those veins, then new thoughts will follow. Perhaps just be quiet for a long period of time...you might discover something new.

8:00 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

What is astonishingly mind numbing about this whole discussion, especially with Jaz, is that asking someone to reconcile their past behavior with their current behavior is not in any way derailing, dismissive or even a "tactic." It's the only way to argue a point. It's not something that comes out of a playbook or is an engineered feat to silence the opposition in the least bit. If Kent can't be held to his very own words then there's really no reason to have a blog.

Kent said any dissent about President Bush should be done in private. If it was done in public it was anti-American because it enabled the enemy. When I pointed out to Kent his words, he called me the enemy for pointing them out. Jaz, you just can't discard Kent's comments, of which you supported, or at least I'm not going to let that happen. Bringing them up to show that Kent is, according to his own words, acting anti-American, is not derailing or attacking anyone or anything. He said it, you supported. Calling it a tactic or a recipe from a playbook is giving me way too much credit.

9:20 AM  
Blogger Kent said...

Claiming not to know about Obama's idol Saul Alinsky while simultaneously engaging in Saul Alinsky tactics is indeed the biggest lie you've ever told, Chris.

And don't worry. We don't give you credit for anything other than mindlessly helping elect Saul Alinsky president.

10:01 AM  
Blogger Chris said...

Kent, whether or not I've ever heard of Saul doesn't change the fact that you said any criticism of the president should be done in private. If done in public, it's anti-American. You said it. And now your whole blog is one big American hate-fest. Own it.

10:25 AM  
Blogger David Greenfield said...

Kent, I love how you keep changing the topic.
You asked me to respond to the post at hand, and I did, yet you won't respond to me.
You say you're not ignoring me, but clearly facts are too much for you to handle.
Try to make a point, respond to my post. As I'm sure you'll say you have, or which post, I'll repeat it for you:

"kent, i'll take on your posts randomly one by one to see if you'll respond that way

"They were wrong about the stimulus."
to prove your point, you cite to a salon article which links to a poll saying that 57% of the US thinks the stimulus has either had no effect or a negative effect on the economy, while only 41% believe it's improved he economy.
Of course, the same poll also states that 41% think the stimulus has made the economy better, while only 24% think it's made it worse.
But, your link to a poll is proof the stimulus has failed.
Of course, 20% of people in the US believe that the sun revolves around the earth. Does that make it so?
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/30/science/30profile.html?_r=1&ex=1183780800&en=e3760aa7d1b5022a&ei=5070

And we could also easily cite to a poll that says more than 50% of the country does not believe in evolution; so evolution clearly didn't happen either by your logic.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/22/opinion/polls/main965223.shtml

Now, when i'm looking at sciency things like economics, I tend to go for facts. Numbers are good too. How's consumer confidence doing lately? How about that Dow? Corporate earnings? Durable goods orders?

Now, you wanna respond to one of my questions? Show me your legitimate criticism of Bush."

I'll ignore the positive economic news that's come out since I posted that to make it even easier for you.

Oh, and btw, saying I disagreed with him, I just didn't publish it, is not a way of "Show[ing] me your legitimate criticism of Bush."

11:24 AM  
Blogger Jaz said...

"Opinion pieces in newspapers are not legislative ideas."

What definition of 'idea' do you use I wonder. Somehow in your world an idea isn't an idea until its been put in bill form and voted on. The concept of severing the health care link between employer and employee is an idea. You may not agree with it but it is an idea as soon as it's conceived of.

You seemed to suggest that only the almighty Left has any ideas on how to reform health care. When I present some other ideas you most likely have not heard of, you find ways to disqualify and dismiss by splitting hairs.

"HR 2355 died in 2007."

So the Left rejected Republican health care reform in bill form and now you're whining that the Republicans have no health care ideas. That's like asking someone to solve a problem, rejecting the person's suggestion and then complaining that they have yet to suggest anything to help solve the problem.

Then there's the fact it's not the Republicans' responsibility at this time to create and pass legislation. The Democrats are in full control, they can summarily dismiss anything the Republicans suggest as they have been doing on this topic and every other topic since the last election.

The Dems wanted to be in charge, they are, but now somehow we're supposed to believe that things are being held up because the Republicans don't have any ideas? This complaint that the Republicans don't have any alternative suggestions as to how to begin to reform health care, even if it were true, is an attempt to distract attention away from the fact that it is Democrats not Republicans who are holding up health care reform because they can't agree amongst themselves what "ideas" should be included.

Like I said, get back to me when you people figure out whether a "public option" is an essential part of reform.

In the meanwhile, anything the Republicans suggest should be included, like tort reform, is summarily rejected because the Democrats are under no obligation to listen to the party out of power. Seems to me you can't have it both ways. Either the Republican ideas are not worth while or they don't exist. You can't simultaneously make the argument that any Republican ideas are not worth considering and at the same time claim that the ideas you just rejected don't exist.

As far as dissent goes during wartime, I believe that politics stops at the water’s edge. I don't think it would be appropriate to criticise Obama's handling of the war when overseas. But speaking out against his socialist domestic agenda is patriotic. I'm not sure it's the highest form of patriotism, as the Left claimed was true of their endless harangue of Bush, but it should be tolerated.

So congratulations, you've created some day light between Kent's position from 3 years ago and my current position.

You've successfully executed Rules for Radicals Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

You're now well on your way to achieving the 'redistributive change' your mentor, the Bamster, and his mentor, Alinksy, have been working for all their life.

1:42 PM  
Blogger Jaz said...

Anthe,

Why engage in a substantive debate when you can just personally attack the person making the argument, I guess.

Ahh the enlightened Left, ya gotta love it.

1:59 PM  
Blogger RedneckBob said...

What I will do is point out to both of you, you have become the very things you called anti-American 8 months ago. That's what this is all about.

Amen.

2:17 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

I'm not rejecting anything Jaz. Op-eds are not plans. HR 2355 did not reform health care. All it did was allow insurance companies interstate sales. I'm all for getting rid of employer mandated coverage all it does is burden small business. I couldn't reject anything even if I wanted to, there's nothing to reject. It's obvious the closest you've ever come to politics is a blog and the closest you've ever come to alternative opposition plans is a newspaper. Own it Jaz. Get back to me when you actually have a clue what you're talking about. According to you and Kent, speaking out against the president's plans to overhaul health care is anti-American. You will own it.

2:42 PM  
Blogger Jaz said...

"It's obvious the closest you've ever come to politics is a blog and the closest you've ever come to alternative opposition plans is a newspaper."

Forget if what I'm saying has any merit, just attack my credibility, I guess.

Rule 3: Whenever possible, go outside the experience of an opponent. Here you want to cause confusion, fear, and retreat.

All you really have is your Saul Alinsky tactics, own it Chris.

3:01 PM  
Blogger Jaz said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

3:14 PM  
Blogger Jaz said...

Someday you'll figure it out. Your personal attacks only serve to undercut any substantive arguments you make.

If you're right on the substance, it shouldn't be needed to constantly impugn the credibility of your opposition. This is part of the Alinksy "end justifies the means" approach that you dwell in.

3:24 PM  
Blogger David Greenfield said...

Jaz, don't you love how Kent has abandoned you here on his own blog because he refuses to respond to the questions asked of him?

3:28 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

It's not a personal attack. You have no clue what you are talking about. You link to a newspaper op-ed to prove Republicans have plans and ideas. And then you link to a bill from 2005 that does nothing. HR 2355 does not reform health care. That's not a personal attack. But if you actually followed your guided principles from when Bush was in office, publicly criticizing the president's plans to reform health care is anti-American. Own it.

You always take proving you know nothing as a personal attack. It isn't. You're not even opposition. There's nothing to impugn. It's impossible to reason with someone who thinks newspaper op-eds prove Republicans have ideas. Good luck slapping nut sacks cause you fit right in. You can link to Saul all day long. That doesn't change the fact the closest you've ever been to politics is a blog.

Bereft is certainly a dense way of describing people who think dissent should be done in private except when it's them doing the dissenting. You will own it.

3:32 PM  
Blogger Jaz said...

He's busy posting other stuff. Stick around, there's plenty of time to debate whatever topic you want.

3:32 PM  
Blogger Jaz said...

I worked for the Romney Campaign in 2008, and will again when he runs in 2012 and kicks the Bamster's ass after 4 years of him dragging the country to the left.

3:52 PM  
Blogger Jaz said...

Proving I know nothing?

That's a good one Chris.

At least you've started to add humor to your repertoire.

4:00 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

You worked for Romney? Paid staff member? Or volunteer? What was your title? Even if you volunteered, I'm glad to hear you've done something other than blogging.

Someone who links to newspaper op-eds to argue Republicans do have alternative health care plans and ideas really shouldn't bring up humor in someone's repertoire.

None of this, though, changes the fact that your public opposition to the president's health care reform is anti-American, at least according to how you viewed opposition to Bush. I don't think you're anti-American, or Kent. But there isn't much that can be done now considering how both of you treated Bush criticism. It is what it is. Own it.

4:43 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

What idiot came up with this idea that opinion pieces can't be sourced because they somehow fail to constitute real news? Sounds like something Chris would say.

Speaking of CBarr, how can you compare dissent on necessary Bush national security policy versus Obama's elective health care 'reform'? Talk about apples and oranges. There's no comparison, no similarity between the two.

Here's a particularly galling display of how anti-American the Congressional Democrats were in September 2004.

http://rightfromleft.blogspot.com/2004/09/r-e-s-p-e-c-t.html#links

David, obviously I haven't abandoned Jaz, but I'm sure he appreciates your concern for his well being.

5:17 PM  
Blogger Chris said...

"What idiot came up with this idea that opinion pieces can't be sourced because they somehow fail to constitute real news?"

That's not at all what I said Kent. I said newspaper op-eds are not plans or proof of alternative opposition plans. If the GOP had alternative ideas to reform health care they would have it in the form of legislation.

You said dissent should be done in private not in public. Public dissent was anti-American. Evidenced by your scrambling, it's really gotta suck to be you.

6:37 AM  
Blogger Jaz said...

If you're going to have such exacting standards for what constitutes ideas, which bill exactly is the Democratic proposal?

Because every time at a town meeting when a constituent raises a concern about what's in one of the various bills out there the Democratic lawmaker simply changes the goal posts and says something like, "Well that is not in all of the legislation being proposed, so don't worry about it."

It seems to me that your own party is not living up to your own excruciatingly strict standard of what constitutes an idea.

Which one piece of legislation is the Democratic proposal?

Get back to me when you figure that out and then you'll also be able to answer the question of whether or not a "public option" is to be included.

10:07 AM  
Blogger Jaz said...

Oh and in case you haven't noticed, this isn't the senate floor. In this context, the blogosphere, it's fair to say that Kent and I represent your "opposition".

Opposing you in this comment section is a sufficient qualification to say that we represent the "opposition" in this comment section.

When I speak of being your "opposition", it's quite obvious that I'm referring to current discussion.

4:20 PM  
Blogger Kent said...

Scrambling? Not scrambling. You've been lying and misrepresenting my words about dissent and you know it.

Here's the legislation that you apparently haven't seen. So, now Jaz and I will expect you to suddenly turn into an honest guy and stop repeating the lie that the GOP doesn't have a health care plan.

http://www.house.gov/ryan/PCA/

3:48 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Copyright 2004-2013, RightFromLeft.blogspot.com. All Rights Reserved. All materials contained on this site are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without prior written permission. 0