Yossarian

Heh...

Yep, hope and change...for welfare queens. I'm looking forward to hearing what Bill Clinton has to say. Not sure why Obama revoked the work requirement for welfare. He's likely got that vote wrapped up. ---------------------- "President Obama, one day after reversing the Bill Clinton-era welfare reform by severing the connection between work and welfare assistance, warned a Virginia crowd that “Americans can’t be looking for handouts.” “Americans can’t be looking for handouts,” Obama said during a campaign stop in Virginia. “There are some folks you can’t help if they’re not willing to help themselves.” Moments later, he invoked former President Clinton as a model for economic leadership: “Bill Clinton did it, and we ended up having 23 million new jobs,” Obama added. http://washingtonexa...article/2502100

As long as tax dollars are not being spent to dispose of fetuses, I don't care. Last year, PP got $487,400,000 in tax dollars and performed 329,445 abortions.

What? Someone is competing with Planned Parenthood for the fetus disposal market??? Put Eric Holder and his band of liars on the case. They'll stop that crap.

Even the Washington Post thinks the Obama camp is blowing smoke here. http://gop12.thehill.com/2012/07/washington-post-obama-campaign-blowing.html

How long has it been since Congress passed a budget? Three years? Unfortunately, the budget was blocked every time during the first two years of Obama's term when the Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate. I blame Bush.

Dang! Busted! It's true. i get paid to post the "Jimmy Carter without the ______" here. The difference between me and others here is that I'm earning private funds as opposed to those who spend time here on the public payroll. It's the right-wing way! I get $10.00 per post. It's like Jimmy Carter without the public trough. Cha-ching!! $$$$$

President Obama's three+ years in the WH gives him the edge in experience? Well, that is correct , I suppose. But it's like having all 24 starters returning on a lousy football team that went 0-11 last season. That's the kind of experience you don't need. Obama is like Jimmy Carter but without the integrity.

This all has to do with diverting attention from Obama's 3 1/2 years in office. He's Jimmy Carter without the honesty.

I don't have the time to grade racism - whether it rates a 1 or an 11 (that's the KKK/New Black Panther level). I judge it to be all bad. It's not all relative and it isn't justified by the racism that existed in the last few centuries.

Ooops. Looks like another leftist lie has been revealed. http://finance.fortune.cnn.com/2012/07/12/mitt-romney-bain-exit/

That's laugh-out-loud funny.

Well, we know one black guy who was not flown in - his name is Barack. We know that black people will vote purely on the basis of race. Just like the KKK has in the past.

Yes

Why was he booed? Because he tried to turn the NAACP against President Obama. Clayola Brown, the member of the NAACP's National Board of Directors who invited Romney to speak, said the presumptive Republican presidential nominee should not have used unemployment numbers to try to turn the crowd against Obama. Who was he supposed to blame for the 14+% unemployment in the black workforce? Calvin Coolidge? Why then was he invited to speak? Brown said the point of inviting Romney to the convention wasn't to give him a chance to win over African American voters who overwhelmingly backed Obama in 2008 and are expected to vote for him again this fall. Instead, Romney was invited to "show respect to the organization," she said. So...they wanted pandering. http://washingtonexaminer.com/naacp-crowd-calls-romney-demeaning-insulting/article/2501856

I suggest Gov Jerry Brown and the Stockton Mayor Johnston (D) take a trip to Madison, WI, and get smart. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/stockton-san-bernardino-bankruptcy.html

Calling a duck a duck isn't name calling, "friend." On two different occasions in this thread, you've mischaracterized my position to imply that I'm not bothered by waste or fraud (the bolded portion of quote above, and with a similar comment in your previous post). I can only conclude that you're either genuinely too dim to actually understand the words that you're reading or that you're being deliberately obtuse for trollish effect. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it's not an issue of mental acuity. In this case, I'll take the bait to defend myself and to make sure my position isn't misrepresented. This is not for your benefit so much as for other readers and participants in this thread. Pointing out that there is a fraud or waste issue isn't the problem, it's the hyperbolic "oh no, our country is screwed because the leftist Governor of Massachusetts Deval Patrick wants aid recipients in Massachusetts to use the ~500 bucks they get from the state on porn, tattoos and lotto tickets" tenor of your original post that's the problem. Also, at the risk of being a bit pedantic, when someone says they're sick of something, it means they're tired of it, not that they're actually sickened by it. While I never said that anything in this discussion makes me sick or is sickening, I'll say that yes, I do fully agree that abuse of a welfare program is sickening since it needs to be spelled out for you. In this post I am accused of either being dim (stupid) or pretending to be obtuse (stupid). I'm expecting an apology.

You must be acting intentionally obtuse. Most of our political beliefs are different but you aren't so stupid as to think that an "until summer" answer implies that the solstice affects the court. June 25 . . . June 25 . . . carry the two . . . by my math that would qualify as summer. Would you please double check that for me, Yos? Thanks. I'm glad that we agree about an approximate date. I still don't know what you were arguing against with the gibberish of your previous 3 posts in this thread but I'm glad that we've reached an end point. In this post, I am accused of acting intentionally obtuse. My dictionary suggests that means stupid. World English Dictionary obtuse (əbˈtjuːs) — adj 1. mentally slow or emotionally insensitive 2. maths a. (of an angle) lying between 90° and 180° b. (of a triangle) having one interior angle greater than 90° 3. not sharp or pointed 4. indistinctly felt, heard, etc; dull: obtuse pain 5. (of a leaf or similar flat part) having a rounded or blunt tip I'm expecting an apology.

I don't know about quibbling . . . I was genuinely confused as to what Yossarian was arguing. Honestly, I still am. It looks like you were in the same boat. http://www.huskerboa...post__p__962229 No, I was confused as to why you were confused. Yossarian clearly wasn't arguing. It was a potayto/potahto thing, and much was made of it for seemingly no reason. Here's one. You said I called people "stupid." This is what you're going to find, or I'll be expecting an apology. When you can't find such a post, I'm going to consider your use of the word "stupid" a personal attack, which is a rules violation. Well, then I apologize. So, is calling someone obtuse and dim a rules violation? I've been called obtuse and dim. Just wondering. No one asked if I was pretending to be obtuse, they simply said I was.

What would you expect him to do? He concedes points when people do pin him down. What more are you looking for? Further, is there anyone else on TV that does what you're asking of Stewart? I'm looking for him to be funny. He is on the Comedy Channel after all. As long as he's not in it for the laughs? You're not making any sense. Again - I only expect him to be funny. I like it when he does a good interview, but again, I only expect him to be funny. Not MSNBC funny, but funny nonetheless.

What would you expect him to do? He concedes points when people do pin him down. What more are you looking for? Further, is there anyone else on TV that does what you're asking of Stewart? I'm looking for him to be funny. He is on the Comedy Channel after all.

I don't know about quibbling . . . I was genuinely confused as to what Yossarian was arguing. Honestly, I still am. It looks like you were in the same boat. http://www.huskerboa...post__p__962229 No, I was confused as to why you were confused. Yossarian clearly wasn't arguing. It was a potayto/potahto thing, and much was made of it for seemingly no reason. Here's one.

Why on earth would you assume that the two things are related? Also, who said that he is a genius? Who said that? For that matter . . . how could you even infer that? That's even weaker trolling than your normal routine. Can't you say anything without accusing people of trolling. You always take it to the personal level.

I'm just following knapplc's example. He has asked you that in the past. Excuse me? This is the part where you get to show where I have done this. I await your successful search with bated breath. Regarding your question of whether I think enlarging the Government's role in health care is going to improve it, that's a misinterpretation of my stance. I have not advocated for this bill. I think I've been pretty consistent in saying that this is a well-meant but wrongly-enacted attempt to fix a broken system - a system that was broken, by the way, by the private sector. I equate Obamacare with No Child Left Behind - drafted with noble intentions, but enacted in a ham-fisted way. No, frankly I do not think government involvement alone will fix what's broken about healthcare, but at the same time I have zero faith in the private sector to fix their mistakes, either. It is a complex problem that one bill won't fix. I don't know if anything will fix it. I'll find the post where you accused both of us of pretending to be confused or stupid. It's true - I am not as good at finding posts on here. but then, i don't get paid while ai surf.

Sadly, yes, it does. You may not know it, but it does. Speaking as a guy who nearly lost his wife to cancer and did lose his mother to cancer, you do not know that it won't affect you. Both cancers came from out of the blue. Both were severe, affecting what appeared to be very healthy ladies. You simply do not know. Don't take it for granted, man. It really, really affects you. I am sorry for your loss and near-loss, knapplc, but do you really believe that enlarging the Government's role in health care is going to improve it? It will likely increase the costs greatly by extending it to people who do not have it now (not to mention the costs of administering the program), but enhance it? I don't know. But you are right, everyone is affected one way or another. As far as paying for the uninsured at the present, we do it because the law requires emergency rooms to treat everyone who walks in - it doesn't matter if it's for a headache or a bullet wound to the head. It all comes back to the question of who is better at managing anything - the Government or the private sector? I made up my mind about that when my "free" medical care (because of my military career) now costs me. The "free" stuff is almost always more expensive.