Monday, February 24, 2014

TELL ME AGAIN...WHAT HAPPENED?






The question (at about 1:21) was: "I thought the Affordable care act was to save $2,500.00 per family. What happened?"

The answer was (looking very intent and serious): "This health care discussion has got to be broader. It's got to point out where there's weaknesses and failures. It's got to make sure that we're not leaving people behind or destroying the system. But don't pretend there was some type of safe harbor before this where everything was just peachy keen..."

So what happened? We've got to broaden the discussion.

So what happened? It's got to point out where there are weaknesses and failures

So what happened? It's got to make sure we're not leaving people behind.

So what happened? It's got to make sure that we're not destroying the system.

So what happened? Don't pretend there was some type of safe harbor before this.

Which of those five, or all of them, or any combination of them answered the question?

So what happened? Barack Obama, that's what happened.

So what happened? A Democrat Congress, that's what happened.

So what happened? We were told bald faced lies and we liked them, that's what happened.

So what happened? Liberalism played out like it always has, always does and always will play out: The people will be led down a path that leads to the government taking over everything.

We have less than two years left before we'll have to say about our country, "What happened?".

7 comments:

Xavier Onassis said...

OMG. Another complete waste of bandwidth.

A loop of Obama repeating the same campaign rhetoric over and over again (like politicians campaigning do), followed by, what? Some people who weren't even involved with the Obama campaign being put on the spot by some idiot trying to hold them personally responsible for what someone else said in a different campaign??

Good lord. So lame.

Joe said...

XO: I have plenty of bandwidth to waste. That comment was so lame.

Joe said...

XO: The point, of course, was that PBO (tap) DID make those statements. The audience guy asked a very straight forward, simple question and the politician simply didn't answer it...but pretended that he did, and looked very sincere about it.

Duckys here said...

Now, if the right wing would simply understand this should be a first step toward eliminating for profit insurers and their imposed vigorish as a way to start controlling costs, we can move on to a single payer system.

Shaw Keewee Progressive Twerking said...

In Arizona, if an African-American sits at a lunch counter anywhere in America, the proprietor has the right to refuse him or her service?

If a Jew hails a taxi driven by a Muslim, that Muslim has the right to refuse him or her?

If a gay couple wants to buy a ticket to attend the theater, they can be turned away?

That is the sort of country the Taliban dreams of.

It's always good to see a con show his true colors. And in your own words, those colors are NOT red, white, and blue.
And so, when it came right down to it in Arizona today, rather than do what was right because it was the right thing to do, rather than strike down the bill because it would have legalized religious segregation as if Arizona was a state in Russia instead of America, Brewer at the behest of her oh so smug religion and her oh so morally superior political party vetoed SB 1062 not because it was blatantly counter to everything the United States stands for but rather because it would have cost Arizona money.

When Brewer was forced onto the global stage to very publicly choose between state sanctioned Apartheid and the almighty American dollar, not to mention political power, Brewer did the predictable thing.
She did what these people always do when forced to chose between conviction and profit.
She took the money.
So much for republicans’ vaunted ideals.
So much for the superior morality of CONSERVATIVE religious conviction.

Joe said...

SKPT: "...if an African-American sits at a lunch counter anywhere in America, the proprietor has the right to refuse him or her service?"

He should not do it, but he should have the right to.

Does the state have the right to dictate moral behavior? That's questionable, at best.

Xavier Onassis said...

SKPT: "...if an African-American sits at a lunch counter anywhere in America, the proprietor has the right to refuse him or her service?"

He should not do it, but he should have the right to.

Does the state have the right to dictate moral behavior? That's questionable, at best."

Perhaps you have never heard of something called a "law".

In an actual Civilization (as opposed to an anarchic mob of humanity killing, stealing and asserting their 'freedoms' all 'willy nilly') there are laws that determine what is and is not acceptable.

These laws are agreed upon and adopted by the members of this Civilization.

Our Civilization determined, a long time ago, that "...if an African-American sits at a lunch counter anywhere in America, the proprietor DOES NOT have the right to refuse him or her service..."

We, as a society, are now expanding that concept to grow liberty and justice and stamp out bigotry and prejudice and we will NOT allow a lame "religious freedom" argument to allow bigots to be bigots.

Your religion does not give you the right to strip your fellow citizens of their freedoms.