110% Correct and accurate. Unless Romney was a Democrat at the Time he instituted it in Mass. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...e_adviser_obamacare_based_off_romneycare.html
Jonathan Gruber, MIT professor: "The truth is that the Affordable Care Act is essentially based on what we accomplished in Massachusetts. It's the same basic structure applied nationally. John McDonough, one of the other advisers,who work in both Massachusetts and advised the White House said 'it's the Massachusetts with three more zeros.' And that's basically a good description of what the federal bill did."
Sure, and you're "objective", and don't hate the Gov't, even though you're "anti-Gov't".ointer: Thanks for the laugh, Scott.
sure I am objective. Consistent also.
I also said there is a place for government in society. duh. I hate government when it's run badly. I am anti incompetent crooked unaccountable government. So should you. Unconditionally loving a bunch of crooks is silly. Nice try at spinning my comments into something I never said.
The laugh looks like its on you.
I quoted YOU, so to say you never said it would be an outright lie. Guess what. Everyone hates Government when it's run badly, crooked or unaccountable. The difference is sane people, and I include you there, when you're not supporting the insane loons like Russ, Casper, and the Terrorist Supporter, etc., are not virulent anti Government in every instance, and recognize Gov't can and does work in some instances. But when you state you are Anti-Gov't, You are NOT Objective, but again, when compared to the insane loons, you are reasonable. But Objective? No.
again, you took one quote out of context and didn't read comments made up to that point. If you did it accidentally, then fine but I only said anti government pertaining to bad government. Nothing non objective there. I ain't going to bother reading all the posts but I did say shortly after that government has its place. No one on my "side" thinks there should be NO government. Responsible government ... Competent government .... Accountable government ... Yes.
I supported a well written post Russ made because its true and I agree with it. I ain't one of these guys that will support a side simply because I have made it clear that my alliance is with that particular side or party. If it makes sense, I will say so and if it doesn't I will say so. That is objective. If a republican was potus at this time and was lying and screwing shit up, I would say the same things. Again, that's objective. Shall I keep going?
For the record, I think you show objectivity a lot and most of them I enjoy reading even though I may not agree. But your last 2 posts .... ahhhh not so much.:toast:
of course. And that is why the republicans are against him so much. Why should they let him get away with this shit? Funny how they always blame the gop for not working with Barrack but totally dismiss the fact that Barrack won't work with them. Lets hope the gop wins the senate in Nov and keeps the house. I have no doubt they will. Maybe then Barrack will be a real president even though it will only be for 2 years.
When/If Obama allows a Terrorist attack on American Soil that kills 3000 people, and then starts a war against the Wrong Country to get revenge for said attack, and has another 3000+ people killed on his watch, then I'll be right there with you calling Obama a disaster like no other before. Since neither have come close to happening, Facts do not support your statement. cheersgif
nice try but facts say otherwise.
I prefer judging and commenting on things while they are happening.
This kind of stuff always reminds me of Buckner's error in game 6 of the world series. So many believe it cost the Red Sox the title and totally refuse to admit there was a game 7. Let alone games 1 through 5 before that. The media glorified it and blamed Buckner. Still to this day. Same with Bush. Both parties when along with it under Bush unlike Obama's presidency. That's a fact. I like dealing in facts. cheersgif
Obama DID NOT Go along with "it", and spoke out against the disaster early and often. Hillary did, which is why he beat her. It was Bush's war, and trying to put blame on both parties equally is not factual, nor "objective". I like dealing in facts also. ONE Republican voted against it in the Senate. 6 Voted against it in the House. 22 Dems got it right and voted against it in the Senate, In the House, the large majority(61%) got it right and voted against it. More Dems in total in both bodies voted against it then voted for it. Facts are great things. http://bluemassgroup.com/2007/01/how-the-democrats-voted-on-iraq-in-2002/ :toast:
i never said Obama went along with it. Nice try.
More facts ..
"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998
"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998
"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001
"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002
"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002
"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002
"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002
"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002
"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002
"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002
"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002
"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003
[FONT=Lucida Handwriting, Cursive][/FONT]
These 7 Republicans got it right about Iraq and should be recognized and applauded.
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/mccarthy/the-seven-republicans-who-were-right-about-iraq/
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/mccarthy/the-seven-republicans-who-were-right-about-iraq/
