Obama: Intelligent, Socialist and more

I find it outright laughable the way the Republican party thinks they're going to score points with voters by name calling while at the same time offering Zero new idea's that would actually benefit people.

Welcome to Republican-land!
Bring your AK47 and your Pirate hat!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

"Socialist: 20 said so in April, up from six in September."

The dead ender 25% Republican supporters have absorbed the talking points drilled into them by their Party leaders. Congrats Rush! Repeat any nonsense enough and the Republican base will repeat it on command

How many people TOOK this survey? Doesn't sound like very many, unless "people" = "percentage of people surveyed"?

I find it outright laughable the way the Republican party thinks they're going to score points with voters by name calling while at the same time offering Zero new idea's that would actually benefit people.

Welcome to Republican-land!
Bring your AK47 and your Pirate hat!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7QDv4sYwjO0

Posted by: DrainYou | May 7, 2009 4:37 PM

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Socialist: 20 said so in April, up from six in September."

The dead ender 25% Republican supporters have absorbed the talking points drilled into them by their Party leaders. Congrats Rush! Repeat any nonsense enough and the Republican base will repeat it on command

Posted by: Mike | May 7, 2009 4:47 PM
***

Mike and Drain you...

Snap out of it- ! You have both have your ObamaGoggles clogging your ability to think clearly..

So are you complaining about the improvement in his "good" and "intelligent" scores as well? - Or are only the negative scores "...talking points drilled into them by their Party leaders" or "name calling"...

On the count of three you will wake up, buy a Prius and give all of your money to the next red shirted Acorn thug that rings your doorbell...1...2...3..GO!

Socialist , American will see more and more under Obama.

How many people TOOK this survey?
Posted by: Op109 | May 7, 2009 5:06 PM
.

Terry, John W and John D

On the count of three you will wake up, buy a Prius and give all of your money to the next red shirted Acorn thug that rings your doorbell...1...2...3..GO!

Posted by: heartburn | May 7, 2009 6:01 PM
**************

PrePuke,
It sounds like you're losing what little is left of your mind.

Time to sign up for one of Boss Limbaugh's re-education pep talks...
http://www.pufferfishblog.com/weblog/2009/04/republicans-less-popular-than-venezuela.html

Socialism is the new Republican buzzword.

Socialism is the new Republican buzzword.

Posted by: Doug R. | May 8, 2009 9:18 AM

Of course it is. The republicans play book is to dress it up as though they are the "great" Americans fighting anything that sounds "foreign", "bad". Quite frankly, with their hardline, party of no, they are the ones quite anti-democracy. The will of the people mean nothing to the rabid.

Of course it is. The republicans play book is to dress it up as though they are the "great" Americans fighting anything that sounds "foreign", "bad". Quite frankly, with their hardline, party of no, they are the ones quite anti-democracy. The will of the people mean nothing to the rabid.

Posted by: bill r. | May 8, 2009 10:43 AM

Bill and Doug R.

What term would you use for this admins massive government increased influence ( I am being generous in not saying takeover) of banking , the auto industry and its planned Universal health care... all of these have always been, for the most part, privately run industries it is definetly not capitalism... do you have some new creative economic term to define this?

So Hank Paulson is a socialist?

Once again heartburn, it is not "this admins massive government increased influence" it is the last admins massive government increased influence. The banking and auto interventions were the handiwork of the Bush administration. Is your short term memory that bad?

Once again heartburn, it is not "this admins massive government increased influence" it is the last admins massive government increased influence. The banking and auto interventions were the handiwork of the Bush administration. Is your short term memory that bad?

Posted by: Mel | May 8, 2009 2:49 PM

There it is-! I knew the fill in the blank Bush.... argument would come into this. How predictable!
--
Apparently your memory ends with the Obama inauguration..
--
Who is in power now- and massively increasing the size of government and its expansion into private sectors? Because it was large before does that really rationalize making it horribly worse?
--
Bush deficits and spending were horrible-and probably cost Republicans power... Funny thing is that now Obama has tripled the deficit that he inherited- all in order to pay for non- simulative liberal agenda items...this deficit he has created is not just massive it is larger than all previous presidents combined…Obama raised Bush and doubled down again. Guess that could be called change.
--
You and I have already gone in circles on the Chrysler mafia-like negotiation tactics that the Obama admin used on the lenders holding Chrysler debt... intimidating private investors to forego contractual rights they had negotiated in good faith- for the good of the "people" - is a well documented tactic of both Hitler, Mussolini and even FDR (for the war effort) ... what do you call that other than socialistic?
--
Did the Bush admin put Univ Health Care on the table as a "must have" in order to get us out of the "crisis" economic condition?
Health care- right now- is between 17-20% of the economy- a single payer health care program like Obama envisions ( or will get) means that the government would be the only player (economically) in a huge part of our economy... what is that other than socialistic? Or do you still want to fixate on your boogie man Bush?

Heartburn, have you ever heard of Godwin's Law? Look it up.

Do you ever get the facts right? Do you ever bother to research rather than making up outlandishly wrong statements? Really, try that reading thing I suggested sometime. You may not end up looking so ignorant all the time if you give it a shot. I'm really tired of educating you.

Obama is not promoting Single payer. He didn't during the campaign, he isn't now. Single payer isn't even on the table. Obama has rejected it outright.

http://healthinsurance.about.com/od/healthinsurancebasics/a/obama.htm

http://www.factcheck.org/politics/government-run_health_care.html

http://www.healthleadersmedia.com/content/229280/topic/WS_HLM2_LED/White-House-Healthcare-Summit-Obama-Calls-on-All-Sectors-to-Cut-Costs.html

Never let the facts get in the way of your rant against the Obama boogie man, Dr. Goebbels!

Mel- get over yourself...

Godwins law-? really ? Did you miss the Mussolini and FDR part of my comparison... ? So in your puny little liberal scope of understanding, it is offlimits to even compare other self identified socialistic governments policies to what is currrently being undertaken by this admin- even when the similarities are so stark?

Obama has not explicitly said that "I want a single payer" system-- other than the issue of "Obama the campaigner"being a Different "Obama the president"- he is the master of unintended consequences...A large government health care insurance system will crowd out private providers- If I am an employer providing family health care to my employees, what is keeping me from dropping the coverage knowing that my employees have access to taxpayer funded health care insurance? Not to mention that there is always the chance that Obama may just come along and say that he does want his program to be universal- there is nothing stopping him from doing this.

Dr, Goebbels, what a brilliant argument! Ignore the actual facts and merely posit that something"may" happen as proof.

In case you haven't noticed heartburn nothing currently stops enployers from dropping health insurance or transferring more and more of the cost to the employee.

And as usual, you are wrong about the proposal in question (what a shock!). The "government healthcare plan" being discussed wouldn't be taxpayer funded. It would be a group coverage plan that any citizen could sign up for, but they would have to pay premiums just like any other plan. The benefit would be, that being a large plan, costs could be negotiated with providers, to making it a more affordable plan for those who do ahve access to a good employer supported plan. Right now, those who have to buy health insurance outside of a large group plan pay even more than the already sky high costs others pay.

Is that the Hitler health plan Dr. Goebbels?

Posted by: Mel | May 11, 2009 10:56 AM

Mel- Your wrong and being intentionally evasive...
--
You said- "Ignore the actual facts and merely posit that something"may" happen as proof."
--
because Obama's plan isn't an overt takeover of private insurance providers does not mean that this will not be the effect.
--Mel- what will happen when the government plan with its' taxpayer subsidized lower premium insurance is available? Will people stay with Aetna or UHC out of the goodness of their hearts? No-most will move to the less expensive plan-- will this plan be managed well? Will the plan provide adequate coverage? NO and Your proof is in the existing Medicare/Medicaid model...they are functional safety nets- with horrible waste and fraud...good idea expanding that!
--
If in your word "The "government healthcare plan" being discussed wouldn't be taxpayer funded." Can we get the money back that Obama has already allocated in his budget then?
--

We can go back and forth about the details I am sure- the bottom line issue here is that there is no constitutional authority for the massive government programs that Obama has proposed... we need a less intrusive government not more...you are hyper sensitive to any criticism of Obama and attempting to rationalize an ideology based government program...

Heartburn, you are just making stuff up. You are being intentionally dishonest. There's no arguing with that. You are hyper critical of Obama, you see evil in his every act. Where there are no facts to back that up, you will simply make up hypotheticals and maybes, or just plain lie.