My top 5 favorite political cartoons this week…
by Gary McCoy at Townhall.com… spot-on…
by Steve Kelley at Townhall.com… cute now but prophetic of more looming danger for preborn children…
by Henry Payne at Townhall.com… sad his little boy will someday see this…
by Mike Lester at Townhall.com…
by Chip Bok at Townhall.com…
Violations will be deleted and you may be banned.
Threats will be immediately reported to authorities.
Following these rules will make everyone's experience visiting JillStanek.com better.
Our volunteer moderators make prudent judgment calls to provide an open forum to discuss these issues. They reserve the right to remove any comment for any reason. Jill's decisions on such moderations are final.
Go to gravatar.com to create your avatar.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
The last one is best.
I appreciate good humor even when it is my elephant that is being gored.
b o is now warning the economic recovery may take several more years.
[I am guessing it will be at least 3 years after b o flees the scene of the crime.]
b o is urging that all cell phones must accept presidential updates, but republicans refuse to support the measure unless the texts all end with the letters ‘LOL’.
Osama bin Laden’s son Omar says the burial of his father at sea humiliated his family.
When asked how the discovery of a stash of pornography and slasher films under his late father’s bed made his him feel, Omar said, “Those were just home movies.”
Recently Mexican officials interdicted two north bound trucks containing a total of 513 people.
Looks like the b o re-election campaign has commenced and the democRATs have already begun their ‘get out of the vote’ efforts in earnest.
‘Vote early and/or vote often, when in doubt vote multiple times’, but you will only get paid for democRAT votes.
[The ‘law of unintended consequences’ may blunt the effort as gas prices rise to $4 a gallon.]
In a related story democRATs in Texas are vigorously condemning proposed legislation that would require a valid Texas I.D. before people would be allowed to vote.
b o has announced a change in U. S. energy policy: Drill early, drill often, drill now, drill ‘here’.
But‘here’, as defined by b o, is Brazil.
b o recently announced the approval of 2.84 billion dollars to build a brand new state of the art petroleum refinery in Columbia, South……no, not South Carolina……..South America.
Ken the Birther -
Is the GOP going to come up with any better offerings, or should we just pencil Obama in until 2016?
According to one Dr. Simmons, the ‘Sperminator’ did not do anything wrong. The gov’s body was producing hundreds of thousands of sperm cells daily that were just going to waste.
Arnold was just complying with the evolutionary imperative to improve the gene pool by downloading the biological data contained in his DNA as far and wide as possible.
[Close your eyes and imagine one of those walking trees from ‘Lord of the Rings’ in a slow speed pursuit of the comely domestic pleading in a low frequency drone that sounds just like algore, “Release the chakra.” Then a few months later, said cortesan is pointing to her ‘baby bump’ and saying, “It’s not a tumor. It’s not.” and “Show me the money.” The ‘Sperminator’ says, “Ahl bee bock.”, but in his mind he singing to himself ‘I Ain’t The One and when Maria confronts him with the now 14 year old tumor, Arnold breaks out in an Austrian rendition of ‘Gimme Three Steps’.]
My mind harkens back to that post about all the benfits of male semen for the female recipients. I wonder if Dr. Simmons read that article.
Is there an equally efficacious effect if the sharing is male to male?
‘kudos’ to Maria Shriver, Tipper Gore, and posthumously to Elizabeth Edwards for giving the philanderers the heave ho. Liz was a little slow on the draw, but it is never too late do do the right thing.
Hillary Clinton, clinging to the ever fading hope of being the primera feminista el commdante en todo y el presidente, is self relegated to the helpless house wife hall of shame, baking cookies to pass the timein her exile.
I like the idea behind the first cartoon, but I wish the cartoonist hadn’t portrayed all the “anti-birthers” as women. There are a LOT of men in the pro-abortion movement, and I think we should draw more attention to that.
And, of course, we have an abundance of women in the pro-life movement!
Ex-GOP says: May 22, 2011 at 12:00 pm
Ken the Birther -
Is the GOP going to come up with any better offerings, or should we just pencil Obama in until 2016?
Ex-RINO,
If by ‘we’ you are referring to democRATs, then yes.
Forget the paper ballot, just look for the lever marked ‘democRAT’ and pull it.
Don’t risk straining an organ that has not been used in quite a while.
If by ’birther’ you mean someone who has read the contitution and understands the minimum requirements to be eligible to serve as president, then thank you for the compliment.
Again do not risk straining that little used organ by attempting to understand the term ‘natural born citizen’.
Even just reading the words might result in some sort of neural hernia.
But then where your head is located it is probably too dark to read without risking eyestrain.
Suggest getting one of those audio books and a set of head phone and place them on your belly like some pregant women do to communicate with their pre-natal child.
It is a proven method.
Ex-RINO,
The only remaining person who claims to have witnessd b o’s birth is his paternal grandmother who says she was there in Kenya when b o emerged from the birth canal [and the magic fairy waved her magic wand] and b o instantly transformed from a product of conception to a living human being.
Then b o appears suddenly in Hawaii and they inked his tiny foot and transferred his unique footprint to the ‘long from birth certificate’ at one of those hospitals.
That tiny foot print isl right there on the internet for all to see. Right next to the embossed seal of the registrar. NOT!
Nobody believed Monica Lewinsky til she produced semen the stained blue dress and slick willy was compelled to provide a sample of his DNA and lo and behold the one who shook his finger in the face of the american public and swore under oathe, ’I did not have sex with that woman……Ms Lewinsky.’ had lied to all of us.
Pardon me if I do not take b o at his word. But he has demonstated a propensity for lying about much less important things.
Ken the Birther -
Your first post (12:00PM) seemed to break two of the five general “do’s” on this board. Disappointing to see you lash out like that, yet claim such high Christian character in other posts. I think you should decide what you are and stick with it.
My only questions for you – rather straight forward:
– Do you think Obama was born in this country?
– What other Presidents have you held to this level of scrutiny?
Do you think Obama was born in this country?
Give or take a couple of days.
What other presidents have you held to that kind of scrutiny?
Only ones that were supposedly flown in by non-citizen fathers to Hawaii the day before they were born just so they could be born here.
Hey Ken, which Jewish tradition were you raised in and how did your parents react to your conversion to hardcore dominionist Christianity and your participation in a mostly Christian anti-abortion *terrorist movement during their days of rage? Looks like the Texas Operation Rescue is gearing up for another fun summer. You in?
*You think Muslims could get away with blockading access to and pouring glue into the locks of building?
Ex-GOP says: May 22, 2011 at 1:12 pm
Ken the Birther -
1. “Disappointing to see you lash out like that, yet claim such high Christian character in other posts.”
2. “I think you should decide what you are and stick with it.”
3. “Do you think Obama was born in this country?”
4. What other Presidents have you held to this level of scrutiny?
===================================================================
Ex-RINO,
1. Please produce a post where I have ever claimed to have ‘high christian character’.
Interesting choice of words ‘lash out’. I seem to remember reading where Jesus ‘lashed out’ not once but twice with a ‘lash’ against trespassers and interlopers. Then there were all the other times he simply lashed out with words.
A stained glass saint I ain’t. But just because I may be lacking does not disqualify me from pointing out what the ‘book’ requires from those who claim to be committed and devout ‘christians’.
2. I do not believe you can produce anything that I have written that evidences any vascillation on my part.
Your chosen moniker indicates it is you who vascillate.
3. That is reminiscent of Jesus asking Peter, “who do you say that I am?”
The answer is No I do not believe b o was born in Hawaii anymore than I believe he was delivered to his mother’s mail box by a stork.
See definiton of ‘natural born citizen’ as it was understood at the time the United States Constitution was ratified.
The burden is on b o to prove his ‘original long from birth cerificate’ is ‘legitimate’.
It is not my resonisibility to prove it false.
After more than two years of stalling and obfuscation, it only took b o two days to produce something we had just been told was impossible by health department officials in Hawaii.
The two differrent affivavits that b o has profferred are obviously not copies of the original long form birth certificate. They are nothing like the copies that other people who were born in Hawaii at about the same time have requested and received from the Hawaii department of health.
I have a copy of my long form birth certificate complete with my footprint. Is it too much to ask for b o to make his original long form birth certificate available for inspection by forsenic document experts?
4. I am not aware of any othe president or presidential canditate in my lifetime who’s past was so obscure. Can you name one?
I have not taken a loyalty oathe to a man, a party or a country for that matter. My first allegiance is to the kingdom of GOD and as the statement implies to a KING, however imperfect I might be.
Okay Ken the Birther, you are not of high character. If you insist.
I do insist you follow the rules of this site though, meaning you should feel free to attack my posts, but we don’t need long rambling posts about people having their heads up their a**. Again, by the rules of this board, that is uncalled for.
I hope you and others continue on this “birther” line – I can think of nothing more to show swing voters how seriously the right is taking issues these days…
I’d like to find out more on this though – so do you believe that relatives felt that the post of President was pre-ordained, thus they ran the birth announcements over in Hawaii as well? And maybe the state of Hawaii is wrapped up in a huge cover-up? Maybe they should make a movie about this!
I hope at some day they overturn that whole requirement – it seems silly to me that a couple could go oversees and adopt a newborn, and that person, though raised in the states with no knowledge of anything else, would be considered inferior to run for President.
Ex-RINO,
Most liberals don’t let technicalities like the constitution get in their way. Like you, they believe those old people were silly and outdated when they wrote the constitution.
Ha – funny…at least it looks like you aren’t one of those crazies that wants to repeal the 14th amendment.
I’m agnostic on the birth issue ( of Obama, not on allowing everyone a shot at a safe one). But Obama’s childhood is somewhat more murky than any other president. I thought it might be unheard of to allow newborns on long flights in 1961, yet it appears his mother registered in a Seattle college when Obama was only fifteen days old – with him in tow.
It has been suggested that the reluctance to release a birth certificate has more to do with revealing his parents weren’t married.
Ex-RINO,
I know this is subtle, but I did not agree with your accusation. I wrote that I do not believe I have made any claims about my character, one way or the other.
You are not quailfed, nor authorized to judge me. [It is in the ‘book’.]
“I do insist you follow the rules of this site though, meaning you should feel free to attack my posts, but we don’t need long rambling posts about people having their heads up their a**.”
“I hope at some day they overturn that whole requirement – it seems silly to me that a couple could go oversees and adopt a newborn, and that person, though raised in the states with no knowledge of anything else, would be considered inferior to run for President.”
You have made my point. You view the founding fathers as ‘silly’.
Keep listening for the ‘pop’ and in the interim just keeping pulling the lever marked ‘D’.
The democRAT party most closely reflects your values.
The framers and the people who ratified the constitution knew, even with the checks and balances they built into the document to restrain the federal government, it would be foolish to have a president with divided loyalties.
I trust their combined judgement, more than your shallow and short sighted opinions.
The media lies so much so that people don’t realize that the Democrats-Leftists are the people who actually perpetuated the “Obama Birth Certificate” concern, and pushed it, and pushed it, and pushed it, for all the traction they could get out of it.
In a public speech a few weeks ago Obama himself had the audacity to mock Conservatives, and attack Fox News, as if Fox News had conspired against him and was pushing the “birther movement.”
In point of fact, MSNBC, CNN, and other leftist propaganda machine media outlets were the ones pushing the birther case, and while, in comparison, FOX News reported on the birther case many times fewer than the leftist media did. Nevertheless, it is understandable that FOX News would have at least reported the birther case, for FOX News is a news outlet, and they do report the news, and the birther issue was/is a news item that Obama himself did help perpetuate.
It deserves mentioning that Obama and his foot soldiers DID lie to the US citizens when he and his supporters posted a phony long form birth certificate on the White House web site. Obama proved that he had lied, and that his supporters had lied, when he finally DID produce what he claims is the REAL Long form birth certificate.
That point is rather interesting, and ignored by the leftist media and Obama supporters, for they ignored that fact, that Obama tried to pawn another document off as the real long form certificate, then finally DID post a different from, proving that his original claim was a scam. If it were not a scam, why did he actually put forth a different, longer, more inclusive “long form” birth certificate?
The Birthers were not so crazy in taking issue with his birth and whether he is Constitutionally qualified to be serving as President of the USA. Obama was raised overseas, was attending a Muslim school, did have a Muslim name, did praise Islam’s prayer as the most beautiful sound he has ever heard, did praise Islam and condemn the USA in his apology tour of Muslim nations in which he betrayed the US as a mean, violent, racist, hate filled nation full of stupid, violent people, while telling the Muslims that they were the salt of the earth, loving members of the Religion of Peace, Love, Mercy, Compassion, Tolerance, Understanding and other false claims.
Another consideration is the fact that the father mentioned on a birth certificate does not necessarily mean that that person IS the actual biological father. Any name can be substituted for the birth father. A woman can be raped, or she can become impregnated by consent by one man, give birth to a baby as a result of that rape or by that consent, and claim another man as the birth father. This could be true in Obama’s case. His father could be another man not listed on the birth certificate, while a second man’s name is posted as the “father.” In Obama’s mother’s history she was hanging out with radical communists, and Obama appears to mention people who influenced him by their radical, communist-socialist, wealthy distribution philosophy.
Nevertheless, Obama is praised as the most pro-life president, with the claim that there are less babies aborted as a result of Obama’s presidency, even though Obama is a cruel man who won’t protect babies from abortion and who praises abortionists and sides with abortionists and such abortion-baby butchering loving groups or organizations as Planned Murdherood, er, Planned non-Parenthood, er, Planned Parenthood, the slaughter factory
William,
Good points all.
The man who spear-headed the suits for release of the certificate was an uber-leftist Hillary supporter. An ACLU-type from Philadelphia.
Obama’s childhood certainly makes him more of a “man of the world” than a “natural-born citizen” as the founders intended.
And his mother did seem to be some piece of work. The first hippie.
I have a feeling a whole can of worms will finally open. But only after he leaves office will the MSM put in any real investigative effort.
I see a couple of potential republican presidential nominees are also being looked at as being “more of a “man of the world” than a “natural-born citizen” as the founders intended.” In the WorldNutDaily no less!
Ken the Birther -
Anybody who quotes Bible scripture should be ready to live to a certain standard.
I don’t view the founding fathers as silly – but I do think that through time, certain changes have been warranted (for instance, my guess is that you agree that slavery should go). Are you saying that you believe a couple who flies oversees and adopts a baby from another country, and that baby grows up, only knowing the US – are you saying that they are uniquely unqualified to one day be President? A little girl, for instance, born in China that moves when she’s less than a year – she might have some sort of hidden love for her former country? Seems a little silly – is that what you are saying though?
William -
The issue had all but died until Donald Trump, a near Republican GOP candidate took it and ran with it. He was on Fox during that time, a right wing political entertainment channel, and they helped keep the ball rolling on it.
Ken, your disdain for our President is clouding what’s left of your judgment. My advice is to chill a bit about this, and learn to spell the name of the Democratic Party.
Then we can discuss.
Hal,
Are you referring to the capilization error on the part of it that spells Rat?
Um…. Pro-choice people are not on the fringe, we are the majority in this country so it is actually the Pro-lifers that are out on the fringe…
and your proof of that is what Biggz?
Ex-GOP says: May 23, 2011 at 6:31 am
“Are you saying that you believe a couple who flies oversees and adopts a baby from another country, and that baby grows up, only knowing the US – are you saying that they are uniquely unqualified to one day be President?”
Ex-RINO,
It is not what ‘I’ am saying.
It is what the United States Constitution requires.
The legitimate concerns that motivated the authors of the constitution to exclude certain persons from eligibility to be president still exist today.
The weak link in our constitution is the United States Supreme Court. These 9 people decide what the constitution means. The president appoints these people to the bench for life and the Senate is supposed to provide a ‘check and balance’, not rubber stamp the presidents nominee.
The president has access to all the classified information which helps to keep us safe and secure from our enemies.
The founding fathers concluded it would be preferable to exclude from elilgibility a Margaret Thatcher or Bibi Netanyahu from being president, rather than risk electing someone like b o.
The founding fathers knew the document was imperfect and they were wise enough to know situations would arise in the future, which they could possibly have imagined in 1789, and they included in the constitution an orderly process for ammending it.
They did not intend for the Supreme Court to do it from the bench. It is not a ‘judicial process’ nor an executive process, it is a ‘legislative process’.
If you take the time to read the original constitution as ratified and the first ammendments, known commonly as the ‘bill of rights’, you will find no provision legalizing slavery or prohibiting women from voting.
Tho slavery existed in some of the orignial 13 states, the founders made a conscious choice not to attempt to prohibit it, knowing that if they did the constitution would not be ratified.
The history is clear on this point.
The majority of the members of the constitutional convention abhored slavery and fullly expected it would die a natural death. But under the terms all the delegates had agreed to and included in the document itself, it would take more than just a majority to ratify the constitution. Ratification required approval by 9 of the 13 states.
The men who were ‘anti-slavery’ compromised with the ‘pro-choice/slavery folks and the rest is history.
Williman Lloyd Garrison later characterized that ‘compromise’ as compact with the devil and a covenant with hell.’
The slaves probably shouted a silent amen.
If you do not like something about the constitution then amend it using the process established by the authors.
Or at least be man enough to admit your aim is to abolish it, because every time you choose to disregard or pervert a little here and a little there, that is exactly what you are doing.
Hal says: May 23, 2011 at 11:53 am
Ken, your disdain for our President is clouding what’s left of your judgment….
Then we can discuss.
===================================================================
Hal,
Thanks for your kindly advice.
But you have to admit your ‘bromance’ with the president has clouded your judgment.
But feel free to take issue with my ‘judgment’.
I respect you and your opinions, even tho I cannot share in your sentiments.
At this time I choose not to change my manner of spelling the name of the ‘dead babies r us’ political party.
I am willing to reciprocate and not protest in how you choose to spell the name of Lincoln’s party.
You know the one that freed the slaves, and without who’s assistance, the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th ammendments would not have been ratified and the Civil Rights Act would not have passed.
I won’t hold hold the dearly departed Senator Byrd against your guys, if you won’t hold the dearly departed Senator Strom Thurmond against mine. I trust they both outgrew and outlived their bigotry.
I don’t see how I can make the same kind of concession on Ted Kennedy. He neither outgrew nor outlived his. But you may be aware of an equivalent reprobate who sat on the other side of the aisle.
CC says: May 22, 2011 at 5:10 pm
====================================================================
Jewishness is an ethnicity. Judaism is a religion.
Not all Jews practice Judaism, and not all people who practice Judaism are Jewish.
My mothers maiden name was derived from the old country name of Bloomingthol.
In Jewish tradtion one inherits his/her Jewishness from her/his mother.
Tho I never practiced Judaism, I am none the less a son of Abraham. I was circumcised tho not on the seventh day. As an invited guest I have celebrated the passover seder with Jews who practice Judaism and been a guest at a bar mitzvah. I do not claim to be an expert in the law of Moses, but I do take some interest in the prophets. I pray for the peace of Jerusalem and for the safety and security of Israel.
Nearly all the first followers of Jesus the Christ were Jews who had practiced Judasism.
Tho I never practiced Judaism, I am a follower of the Messiah, Yeshua, Cristo, Jesus the Christ.
When I received Jesus, Holy Spirit baptized me into the body of Christ, where there is now neither Jew nor Gentile, but one new man in Jesus.
‘dominionist’ doctrine is a perversion. But as one who is well versed in perversion, that should come as no surprise to you.
Both my parents were the children of pastors. My father risked his life and sacrificed of his time and energy to defeat NAZIsm. My maternal grandmother rejected family planning and trusted in GOD to determine how many children she would have. She was blessed with four daughters and a son. She was an evangelist and died and is buried on Prince Edward Island in Canada where she was servant of the Gospel of the kingdom.
I am confident they are proud that thru my efforts a few childrens lives have been spared from the bigots of ‘choice’.
Your promiscuous use of the word ‘terrorism’ is just one more example at how proficient you are at perversion.
I have only been complicit in one murder. One which you would enthusiasticaly endorse, even applaud. The victim was my own son.
I have found forgiveness and I will not repeat that act of violence.
You on the other hand, like a dog returning to it’s vomit, are not content to simply revel in your own wickedness, but seek to entice as many other victims as you can to enter into your perversions.
Muslim mass murderers and serial killers are not likely to have given one iota of thought to putting glue in locks or staging a sit in. They went straight for the jugular, literally, sawing off mens heads, stoning women who had been raped, strapping on suicide vests and self emolating themselves and as many bystanders as possible and flying commercial passenger planes into buildings occupied by thousands of people.
In another example of your propensity for perversion you futily attempt to equate a sit in with a sucide bomber.
Any more questions you don’t want answered?
Ken the Birther -
I’m not saying Margaret Thatcher – I’m just saying, back in the 1700s, I don’t believe a whole lot of couples were flying over to Asia or Africa and adopting babies and bringing them back to the US. These children, raised in the country, US citizens, yet not eligible because they weren’t born here. I’ve got a relative born in Germany while her dad was in the service – same type of deal. I’m not saying to throw out everything the original framers wrote up – I’m just saying that it seems like something worth looking at one day.
Regardless, Obama was born in the US, so it doesn’t matter at this point.
b o is urging that all cell phones must accept presidential updates, but republicans refuse to support the measure unless the texts all end with the letters ‘LOL’.
Ha! Ken, that’s great.
Terminator 5 cartoon is hilarious too.
“Hal,
Are you referring to the capilization error on the part of it that spells Rat?”
Yes. Very childish and undermines any point he might be trying to make. I just stop reading when I see it. Frankly, it’s beneath him. (and that’s a compliment, not an attack)
Ex-RINO,
Senator John McCain’s parents were both natural born U. S. citzens. His father was stationed in the Canal Zone in Panama and his mother gave birth to him in Panama.
The democrats challenged John McCains eligibility to be president because he was not born in the United States. John McCain was required to produce his birht documents and those of his parents to establish that they were both U. S. Citizens and existing federal law concerning citizenship identified John McCain as a ‘natural born citizen of the the United States because it was conferred upon him by his parents.
b o co-sponsored a resolution in the U. S. Senate recognizing John McCains status as a natural born U. S. citizen and therefore eligible to serve as president.
If b o did that then he agrees with the birthers on this point: Only natural born citizens are eligible to be elected president.
So who received more scrutiny concerning their eligibility, John McCain or b o?
And who was that doing the scrutinizing? Who was demanding proof. It was not the party of Lincoln.
The burden is upon b o to make his original long form birth certificate available for inspection by forensic document specialists to determine it’s authenticity.
The original long form birth certificate with his foot print.
Not the cut and pasted versions which were assembled by some amateurish hack.
No court would accept those manufactured documents as an offer of proof.
The United States government would not issue a passport based on either of those documents.
I doubt anyone else could even obtain a drivers license with them.
The constitution is what it is. Not what you wish it to be or not to be.
Quit fretting ”over some days” and hypotheticals. Deal with the present reality.
Have you even bothered to read that portion of the constitution which deals with eligibility requirements for president?
Article II, Section 1
No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
The authors made a distinction between a ‘natural born citizen’ and a ‘citizen’.
And that distinction was the one exception to the natural born requirement and b o was not a citizen of the United States a the time of the adoption of the constitution.
Deal with the facts at hand, not your wish list or maybes or buts or ifs.
It is a simple thing for b o to establish his bona fides. Why is he so reluctant to do so?
duces tecum
Ken the Birther -
I think you should get a lawsuit together and try to find the truth. The burden of proof has been met for most of the western world – but maybe you are simply smarter than them.
By the way, great article on Forbes blog site today regarding how well Health Care Reform is working. Great news for all Americans, no matter where they were born!
Obama thinks it is May 23rd 2008:
http://nation.foxnews.com/politics/2011/05/24/president-obama-has-no-idea-what-year-it
This guy should not be allowed out of the country. He makes us look like fools.
Truthseeker, everybody makes mistakes. If that kind of thing was a deal-breaker, we wouldn’t have let Bush Jr. back *into* the country after some of his overseas trips.
Aw, c’mon! The wackiest thing Bush did overseas was dance with Africans. Obama did some of that on Ellen. Bush didn’t bow and scrape and apologize. Now that’s embarrassing enough to revoke his visa!
If Bush, Palin, or Backmann signed the guestbook at Wesminster Abbey post-dated three years, how chagrined would the left be!
Has anyone mentioned that Chester A. Arthur’s eligibility was questioned too?
The dance was indeed a little wacky, but what’s the harm in that? I was thinking of the one G-8 summit where Bush was captured on film swearing (with his mouth full of food), and also gave German Chancellor a little impromptu “massage” from which she recoiled violently.
Um ex-Gop,
The Forbes article right from the start is hard to take as being from a nonbiased source since it has the famous Obama Hopeychangy election campaign poster at the begining of the article. What is up with that?
http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2010/12/07/aint-that-just-like-a-liberal/ Rich Unger identifies himself as a progressive. http://blogs.forbes.com/rickungar/2011/03/03/we-are-all-democrats-now/ Here he admits to being sypathetic w/the Democrat agenda.
All u have to do is google him and read his other articles to see this demonstrated. He is hardly a neutral unbiased source.
Also in the article, he basially said that Obama care is succeeding bc it is bringing uninsured young adults into the insurance system. THat is such a small slice of Obamacare. Ungar even admits that the jury won’t really be out on heath care for a few more years.
To declare proof that Obama care is working before it has even fully been implemented is hardly anthing to get excited about.
Doug,
What if Obama were to claim that go to Brazil and offer them billions of dollars to build an offshore oil rig while denying US firms any off-shore oil drilling permits. Oh yeah, and announced that he started bombing Libya during the same announcement. Would that convince you he should not be allowed to travel?
Truthseeker, you’re going to moan about any Democratic President, period. My point is that there’s always some mistakes, gaffs, etc. For that matter, I saw Clinton as a huge source for mirth, and as a President about which tons of funny jokes were made.
On bombing Libya, I’m not sure – don’t know enough about it. I’m really not for the US being “the world’s policeman,” but there was going to be an out-and-out massacre if no intervention occurred. Draw your own conclusions.
Did Obama really offer Brazil “billions of Dollars” as you say? I don’t agree with his domestic-drilling policies. and don’t think Brazil really needs help – I thought they were doing rather well at the moment. Here in the US, yeah, can’t rule out some accidents and spills, but I think our energy needs and the economics & demographics at work make for a compelling need to do all we can for domestic production.
My wife and I are going to Italy and France next month, and we’ll try and not be the “ugly Americans.” ; )
Have fun in France. I have a shirt that says “DONT BLAME ME” in big block letters on the front. And on the back it says “I voted McCain”. You may want to pick one up too before leaving the country if you want anybody to take you seriously.
Doug,
“We want to help you with the technology and support to develop these oil reserves safely. And when you’re ready to start selling, we want to be one of your best customers. At a time when we’ve been reminded how easily instability in other parts of the world can affect the price of oil, the United States could not be happier with the potential for a new, stable source of energy.” – White House Press Briefing, March 19th
And yes, this is while his moratorium is still active domesticly. Where is the press on this? Oh yeah, and the 2 billion is going left wing nut George Soro’s oill company named Petrobas. One more example of rabid left wing hypocrisy.
kris -
Do you dispute the numbers or the conclusion? If you dispute the conclusion, what do you attribute the growth to?
The GOP whines and complains of all the horrible outputs – so do you agree that if excitement should be muted until it is fully implemented, so should complaining?
And yet another cringe-worthy faux-pas. Obama starts the toast to the queen too soon, cuing the orchestra to jump into the British national anthem, and then continues his remarks. Did he think it was his own personal soundtrack?
Hans – I hope Congress tries to impeach him for talking during the toast. Or maybe condemn him to watch an hour of Bill O’ Reilly or something. Something real bad.
Only the hypocrites in the DemocRat party could STEAL 500 billion dollars from Medicare by reducing benefits to seniors (done Dec 2009 to fund Obamacare) and then turn around in 2011 and run ads that show Republicans pushing grandma over a cliff. They are a sick bunch.
Not true Truth – from FactCheck:
“Whether these are “cuts” or much-needed “savings” depends on the political expedience of the moment, it seems. When Republican Sen. John McCain, then a presidential candidate, proposed similar reductions to pay for his health care plan, it was the Obama camp that attacked the Republican for cutting benefits. Whatever you want to call them, it’s a $500 billion reduction in the growth of future spending over 10 years, not a slashing of the current Medicare budget or benefits. It’s true that those who get their coverage through Medicare Advantage’s private plans (about 22 percent of Medicare enrollees) would see fewer add-on benefits; the bill aims to reduce the heftier payments made by the government to Medicare Advantage plans, compared with regular fee-for-service Medicare. The Democrats’ bill also boosts certain benefits: It makes preventive care free and closes the “doughnut hole,” a current gap in prescription drug coverage for seniors.”
Truth -
Furthermore, reducing the spending on Medicare and reaching cost savings is a big difference from what Ryan is proposing, which is eliminating care, giving people vouchers, and having them pay the difference in what isn’t covered.
So you are saying that the 500 billion dollars they remove from benefits costs is achieved by reducing Medicare Advantage benefit payouts and this is NOT a benefit reduction it is a plan savings because people will lose their coverage. Oh the illogic of a liberal knows no bounds. Your defense of the hypocrisy sounds non-sensical at best.
Truth – no, that is not what FactCheck is saying at all. If a person chooses not to be in Medicare Advantage, they can shift back into traditional Medicare plans. That is NOT the case with Ryan’s plan – you lose the optional of traditional plans, get a voucher, and are responsible for the money it doesn’t cover. Health Care rationing at its finest.