Posted on 03/21/2010 9:19:43 PM PDT by ejdrapes
Mad About Obamacare? Blame Bush They did it. Despite an overwhelming public backlash and the likely political ramifications, Democrats cut deals and twisted arms and got the votes they needed, winning by a 219 to 212 margin. While the reconciliation process still remains, it’s a sideshow at this point. The United States is a presidential signature away from having national health care. Suffice it to say, as somebody who has spent the past year working to expose the devastating consequences of this legislation and who values individual liberty, this is a sad day. And I’m working on a longer piece right now for tomorrow’s site about the ongoing fight against its provisions, which just got a lot harder. But as upset as I am, I can’t pin the blame entirely on Democrats. The reason is that by passing this bill, liberal Democrats were just doing what liberal Democrats do – raising taxes and expanding the role of government in our lives. Liberals have been working for decades to impose national health care on America. It’s been their Holy Grail. It should have been apparent to everybody that once they took over Congress and the presidency that it would be their top domestic priority. All of the leading Democratic presidential candidates proposed health care plans roughly along the lines of what passed today. The question conservatives should be asking though, is how did we get in this position in the first place? How come, over the course of two elections, Democrats were able to take back the White House and amass substantial majorities in both chambers of Congress, allowing them to enact this sweeping legislation with no Republican votes – and huge defections in their own party?
By Philip Klein on 3.21.10 @ 11:27PM
(Excerpt) Read more at spectator.org ...
Obama was elected because of the sanctimonious selfrightousists bush bashers.
The blame is on conservative turncoats that can’t accept any thing but christlike perfection that will never be.
“Put the blame on the real reason. Parent’s that don’t want to be parent’s and leave it up to others to teach their children morals and values.”
Ha. No, I’m gonna go with public education as being a problem in this country. At least that would help me understand why you never learned how to use an apostrophe. (pssst... that should’ve been, “parents that don’t want to be parents...”)
Your definition of leadership and your interpretation of what Bush did is absurd on its face.
Bush did not fight back domestically because he considered the office of the president to be above domestic politics, not because he was a weak leader. The guy was a strong leader: ask the military which CinC they prefer, for example.
Don’t confuse deliberate refraining from day to day domestic politics with a lack of leadership.
“At least that would help me understand why you never learned how to use an apostrophe. (pssst... that should’ve been, “parents that don’t want to be parents...”)”
We’ll usun dummies have to make typing mistaks to makum youse nihilistic souls something to write about.
I may be wrong about the nihilism assumption from you name since it is spelled incorrectly. Your name makes me wonder if you believe that traditional values and beliefs are wrong or whether you’re just another Obama zero who worships him as a religion. I could make both assumptions from your name.
Public education can be a problem, so can private or parochial education. There are a lot of Nuns that are closet Communists running around with the Jesuits. It all depends on the school.
Follow my posts because when I type I’m likely to make any kind of grammatical mistake since I’m usually on the run and don’t like to edit. It will give you good practice as an editor. Enjoy. Send the corrections along and we’ll both have fun.
It’s the Founders’ fault - they gave us something to lose.
There was that time he gave us back $300 each and told us all to go shopping.
Organ harvesting just popped into my mind!
If you had a 66 year old husband who just had triple bypass surgery and *still* has blockages and *may* need *more* surgery in the future, which of the two evils would scare the hell outta of you more?
Illegal aliens or “death panels” and “health care rationing”?
He’s already past the “useful eater age” *now* but we pay for -premium- health insurance that will give him any treatment he needs, regardless of what any government entity thinks he’s “worth”.
What will happpen if he needs more treatment when he’s even *older* and some ACORN beaurocrat has the power to choose if he’s gets it or not?
When we’re sitting there listening to his “end of life couseling” after being DENIED further treatment, do you think we’ll give a rat’s ass about illegal aliens right then?
BOTH of them suck but only *one* has the potential to kill the love of my life.
1. Will it be the "puke's" fault for not crawling over the broken wreck of the Massachusetts economy and health care system to vote for Mitt Romney in 2012, if he gets the nomination?
2. Will conservatives who refuse to support a gun-grabbing candidate be "pukes"?
3. How about pro-abortion candidates? Are people who draw the line at supporting candidates who sell themselves as pro-choice "pukes", too?
4. Are we all "pukes" unless we unquestioningly bow and scrape before the GOP candidate? Is there any limit to the support we should give them? Is there anything they can do to make themselves unworthy to you?
Answers to these specific questions would be sincerely appreciated.
Well, then lack of Vision— and a very poor choice to hold that philosophy.
Taking responsibility for Katrina was an absolute disaster.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.