Saturday, September 12, 2009

Remember, remember the 11th of September.

Well, the topic for today should be painfully obvious: September 11th.
Today marks the 8th anniversary of the horrible, horrible terrorist attacks on this fair (maybe that's the wrong word) ... wonderful (wait, not patriotic enough!) ... Beautifully flawless nation. So lets take a second to remember the past 8 years.

1. 9/11/01: When the news of the attacks were given to the president, Bush acted quickly and with a certain coolness and confidence that you would expect to see from a president ... +1 experience point for Bush.

2. Bush quickly sends us into combat to kill the terrorists responsible for the horrific slaughter of innocent Americans. + 1 experience point for Bush.

3. 2 years later, Bush decides the war on terror needs to be extended to Iraq. Apparently he never got the memo that Saddam wasn't harboring terrorists himself, and despite the fact that he actually opposed Al Qaeda & did everything he could to keep the organization out of his country, was somehow responsible for the events of September 11th. - 1 experience point for Bush.

Alright, at this point we're in 2003 and Bush is nearing the end of his first term ... he's up +1 experience point. We're doing alright. I don't see why anyone would dislike him ... but moving on.

4. Bush announces "mission accomplished" ... but not before squashing the right to privacy and, if you think about it the right way, the right to freedom of speech (hey, who knows how many terrorist lists I'm on for saying I disapprove of Bush's plan of action!) -1 experience point for Bush.

okay, we're breaking even here! Its not so bad right?

5. Gas prices sky rocket, congressional spending gets grossly out of control, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer while the middle class dissolves, the war on terror, though declared a "mission accomplished", has yet to end (although yes, we all know at this point that Bush was only speaking about one specific troop's mission ...), Approval ratings drop below 30% and Bush makes himself a lame duck early in his second term. -1 for bush -10 for republican'ts everywhere.

Okay, so, we don't have time to actually look at every last little detail, but it is definitely safe to say that Bush is now in the negative and after this point, there is no turning back.

So. Yes, lets all remember September 11th, the day our Nation failed to protect its citizens. Lets turn it into a holiday ... just like pearl harbor day right? (oh wait, that's not a holiday is it?) er, okay, lets try again. How about Oklahoma City Bombing day? ... hmm, that's not right either. How about presidential assassination day?

okay, you get the point. Some things are best remembered without cookouts, fireworks and parades. Lets just focus on what is really important here: being thankful for the first responders, honoring their service to this country, and remembering those who lost their lives in the tragic events on that fateful day. It shouldn't be a celebration, where kids get the day off school and everyone runs out to the mall to spend their day off.

I know, you think I'm anti-american. I'm on "their" side. But honestly, I'm not! I'm on America's side, just not the side of the republicultists who still insist that Bush was a great president and that he never did anything wrong. September 11th 2001 is a day that we will never forget, it was a horrible tragedy, but we shouldn't glorify what should be a somber memory by making it a holiday.

Until Next Time,

Wednesday, September 9, 2009

I can't believe its health care -AGAIN!

Tonight, Obama addressed a joint session of congress to encourage them to pass legislation that would force insurance companies to provide affordable coverage for all and (similar to Butkiss' plan) would force all to buy health insurance. Now, I gagged a little when he mentioned that everyone would be forced to buy insurance, since he specifically opposed insurance by force, but I didn't hear a word about fines for those who refused to buy insurance (of course, it was implied now wasn't it!)

For those of you who are just joining us this evening, whether you listened to Obama's speech or not, we're going to have a little recap session:

1. the proposed $900 billion dollar plan would not add a dime to the deficit, and Obama would veto any bill that did add to the deficit.
2. the $900 billion would essentially come in the form of fines from insurance companies & the wealthy.
3. Speaking of the wealthy. Obama pointed out that his plan would cost less than both the War on Terror AND the tax cuts for the Wealthy, which were a large part of the deficit when Obama took office this past winter.
4. Obama is sticking by the public option, sort of. Nothing like a little healthy competition ... no pun intended (ok, the pun was totally intended, but I really couldn't help myself.)
5. We are NOT going to a. kill old people. b. insure illegal immigrants. c. force everyone to give up their current health care plans in favor of a government run plan. and d. dip into the medicare fund in order to pay for the cost of the new plan.
6. We will re-evaluate malpractice laws and attempt to find a better solution for both patients and doctors alike.
7. Obama places a guilt trip on Congress by reminding them how they get such a damn good deal on their health insurance.
8. Obama places a guilt trip on Congress and talks about Teddy Kennedy
9. Obama places a guilt trip on Congress and reminds everyone that innocent people die every day because we're too busy worrying about profits to bother being caring and humane
10. Obama pisses off a bunch of cultservatives who frantically wave some papers in the air and make disgusted faces every time the camera falls on themm

Okay, get the picture? Obama basically lectured Congress to death ... it was phenomenal.

I have to say, and you know this is how I feel, but I agreed with every last word that left the president's mouth. Aside from forcing everyone to buy health care (yes, its irresponsible to leave others to pay for your medical bills IF you can afford insurance, but what about those who can't afford even the cheapest plan? I'm talking hobo on the corner of Detroit broke. Someone needs to draw a line ... preferably not in the sand...)

I welcome everyone's comments and concerns, especially those of you who stand across the isle from me. I don't understand the opposition. Isn't it the right thing to make sure that everyone in this nation is taken care of? I mean, Jesus would agree with me. He was all about looking out for others.

Anyway, I just want to take a second to talk about the lackluster response from the republicans. Its cute that they picked a heart surgeon to give the response ... but it definitely sounded rehearsed and far from genuine. Besides, did anyone notice that the response actually completely missed the mark on Obama's speech? its as if whoever wrote it, paid no attention to what was actually being said. "He is going to raise the deficit!" ... wait, didn't he just lay out a plan as to how he would NOT raise the deficit and how in the end, we would actually lower the deficit by $4 trillion?? 

All in all, I thought the speech was a huge success. I was even cheering every time he made a great point. Of course, this is what you expected. I guess all that is left to do is see what the mass media has to say tomorrow and what congress will do in these next couple of weeks.

Until next time,

"Give me health care or charge me fines" ?

somehow I doubt this is what everyone had in mind when they were thinking of "health care reform" (a.k.a. Obama-care). Apparently the only way to get a bipartisan health care bill through congress is to threaten to fine all citizens who refuse to buy health care (+10 points for the corporate lobbyists!)

Someone care to guess who proposed the ridiculous plan that would:
1. force EVERYONE to buy health care or face a hefty fine (up to $3,800!)
2. cost $900 billion (just short of the $1 trillion plan we talked about yesterday)
3. raise the premium for smokers and old fogies (60 yrs  +)

B_ _c_s
Vanna I'd like to buy a vowel - U?
Vanna, I'd like to solve the puzzle

That's right folks, the Montana Democrat, a.k.a. Buttkiss, is trying to come up with a bipartisan bill that will force Americans into buying insurance or pay a fine for, gasp, being too broke to afford health care in the first place. AND, on top of that, I do quote, "60-year-olds could be charged five times as much for a policy as 20-year-olds."

UM, EXCUSE ME? Talk about euthanasia of old people. What person 60+ in THIS economy can actually afford to spend 5 times as much on health care as a 20 year old? Here is the plan: Hey guys, great idea, lets charge everyone who is over retirement age a huge premium -- they're still working and at this rate, we can keep them working FOREVER *evil cackle*

I understand keeping smokers premium higher, smoking is a choice. Apparently getting old is a choice too? Hey guys, if you don't want to spend five times as much for health care, you could just off yourself at a young age and avoid the costs totally. I mean, smokers can quit smoking, but what the hell? I know that old folks typically need more medical treatment, but you'd think if they had been paying for insurance since they were in their 20's, they should be at the reward stage ... where they've invested so much money in insurance that it finally starts to pay off for them (hell, if I payed $4,000 a year for 50 years, I'd be expecting you to take damn good care of me by the time I reached 60 +) 

By the way, just to put things into perspective here, it is estimated that Americans spend "$2.5 trillion a year on health care"

I guess the government just can't afford that extra trillion spread over 10 years to help those of us who can't afford it ourselves. Fuck the public option, we can make 20 times as much as we would spend if we keep forcing people to buy their own insurance. Hey, and if they can't afford it, we will charge them a fine. (They want to compare health insurance to auto insurance. The only difference is this: People have the option as to whether or not they want to drive. Again, what do they want us to do? commit suicide to avoid paying for something we couldn't afford in the first place?! Jesus Christ guys, talk about death panels! This is the worst idea to come through congress yet!)

I guess the only positive aspect of Butkiss' plan is that it would force fines and penalties on insurance companies that didn't conform to the new health care system. Of course, will anyone ever enforce them?

Fortunately the Obaminator doesn't support this proposal ... or so he said as of press time. We still have to wait and see how his speech to congress goes over tomorrow. I'm hoping for the best. But with the heavy cult opposition, getting a decent piece of legislation through is going to be a challenge.

Until Next time,

Monday, September 7, 2009

Obama to draw lines in the sand over health care reform

I kid you not! Robert Gibbs is quoted as saying that although Obama will likely not threaten to veto a bill missing the public option, "I'm sure he will draw some lines in the sand." Gibbs does know that it only takes a few big waves to wash those lines away right? Talk about a bad analogy.

So, it seems as if the health care debate has invaded the media. Of course, we are all sitting around waiting for Obama to address a joint session of congress on Wednesday, September 15th, so we can see what will really happen. Of course, the cult is Now, I can't help but laugh when people say they are anti-socialist or are against the public option for health care because it will "cost too much"

Attention America: You are NOT anti-socialist. You simply don't think your tax $$ should be spent on keeping other people healthy. I don't know if you've noticed this or not, but what do you think Medicare & Medicaid are? Has anyone ever considered that if we spend just a little bit more on PREVENTATIVE medicine we might actually SAVE money over time? I mean, if we prevented people from getting sick in the first place, did all the tests & caught deseases in their early stages, people would 1. have a longer life span (even Cuba has a longer life span than we Americans do. They put a huge focus on preventative medicine!) 2. We wouldn't have to spend nearly as much on treating conditions if we were able to prevent them or catch them early enough.

Whoever thinks that the $1 trillion (to be spent over the span of 10 years) isn't worth it, is missing more than a few marbles. Hell, even if you are satisfied with your private insurance plan (and why would you be? They try and rob you every way they can! Talk about the real death panels here!) then you can be sure that a public option would provide much needed competition for the already monopolized health industry thus driving down the price on private insurance (hey, they want to stay in business too! How else do you compete with virtually FREE health care?).

and hey, speaking of monopolies, lets not forget the conditions for which COMMUNISM forms. Rule #1 is that every industry has a monopoly -- hmm, health monopoly, drug monopoly, technology monopoly (almost), we better be careful here. I would think that anyone who wanted to avoid communism would actually be FOR the public option ... =) of course, I'm sure you already thought of that, didn't you? You closet commie you!

ANYWAY, I would just like to take a second here to announce something rather exciting:
MICHAEL MOORE has a new movie coming out on October 2nd titled Capitalism: A Love Story. I'll hold my breath for a second here so I can hear all of the republicults gagging/muttering about how he is too liberal & doesn't know what he's talking about etc etc.


ok. Moving on. I can't wait to see what Moore's comments on Capitalism are (though I'm sure it'll send anyone with a conservative, capitalism loving bone in their body running from the theater screaming). You can be sure that once I see this movie, there will be a review written in here somewhere!

Until Next time,
Try not to get your panties in a bunch

Sunday, September 6, 2009

Mixed Messages on The Afghan Front.

If you want to understand this post better, read This Article from

When Obama was elected to office, he promised to change the focus of the War on Terror away from Iraq and back on Afghanistan. This is one promise we can definitely say he has kept. 21,000 new troops have been sent to Afghanistan over this past year... and (surprise, surprise!) the number of American casualties has increased! This has left a bad taste in the mouths of man Americans.

Now, I don't know what these people expect from war, but I would definitely say that an increased number of troops will equal an increased number of casualties. That is only common sense. (Hey, guys! Lets send like 21,000 more fire fighters in to that California Wildfire. But here's an idea, lets save money by not giving them enough equipment. The increased number of people will make up for the lack of equipment.)

um. say what? Lets back up here for a second and see what the experts are saying on this subject:
"As a result [of the negative reaction to the war], lawmakers say they want the U.S. to more quickly train and equip the Afghan Army and police so that the embattled country can take over its own security needs."

Did I understand this correctly? You mean for the past 7 years we were totally okay with American soldiers dying for our, um, ahem "freedom". But NOW, now that the majority of Americans have changed their minds, so have law makers? Maybe someone should be fired for this? (Pelosi I'm looking at you!) With the money we've spent on this war, we (probably) could have trained and armed the Afghan army/police at least 100 times over. Of course, when Bush was in office, this never would have been an acceptable answer!

"Any additional funding approved by Congress likely will be spent to train Afghan army, police and other security forces to take over the fight against the Taliban, and on equipment to protect U.S. troops from attacks and homemade bombs known as IEDs."

um, okay, but then the troops already in Afghanistan say they need MORE troops to get the job done. I'm so confused at this point! AND Obama's staff was prepared to send MORE troops over ... until someone reminded them that everyone was sick of this shit.

So lets review this whole thing:
1. The American people are sick of the war.
2. Congress' reaction to the people's waning interest in the war is to shift the $$ to the Afghan army/police.
3. The U.S. Troops say they need MORE U.S. troops to support the effors.
conclusion: One huge fucking mess!

p.s. We should have learned our lesson with Vietnam. Or at least taken a lesson from the Russians. Or what about the Gulf War? JESUS CHRIST, DO WE NEVER LEARN? (most obviously the answer is NO.)

Until Next time
Try not to get your panties in a bunch

Friday, September 4, 2009

Republicans Respond: I want my kids to drop out of school!

So the latest news from the Obama-hating cult (a.k.a. republicans) is that Obama's speech to the public school children of America is going to be something like dipping their child in a vat of acid (I guess the wicked witch really does melt in the rain).

You see, I'm not really sure what the argument against Obama's speech is (which is supposed to encourage children to stay in school and care about their education), but believe you me, some parents are going so far as to keep their children home from school on September 8th so as to keep their children from hearing the President's televised speech.

So lets compare the messages that are going around here:

Obama: Stay in school, get good grades, go to college.
Parent: Stay home, drop out of school, don't respect our elected officials and do the exact opposite of whatever they tell you (but only if they are democrats)

Its no wonder school children are so confused these days! With conflicting messages from some of the most dominate people in their lives, what 10 year old wouldn't be lost.

The problem here seems to be this: The president wants to send a positive message and the parents, who are unarguably crazier than David Koresh, see everything the president does as political, and therefore an extension of his socialist/communist agenda. (right? am I right?!)

Someone actually told me yesterday that, and I quote "Obama did this to himself by letting everyone down by quadrupling the debt in only 7 months and appointing communists."

um. SAY WHAT? Okay, first of all, I want to know kind of math this genius was using? Lets just look at a few mathematical problems here:

1: according to this article the bush era (8 years) cost the United States: $11.5 trillion
2: So far (and yes the sources vary a bit) Obama has spent $1.2 trillion.

I don't really see how $1.2 trillion has quadrupled a national debt which far exceeds Bush's 8 year reign. Even if Obama spends on average $1.2 trillion per year (which I doubt he will) he will still end up spending less than Bush did. Really the only reason Obama's spending is so high right now is because 1. we continue to have to pay for that damn war that BUSH started & 2. we had to bail out the banks & auto industry ...

Now, I'm not saying everything that happened was solely Bush's fault, but lets just say that over the last 8 years Congress, Darth Cheney, and pretty much every other person in office, has acted as an enabler towards the cult agenda.

I suppose at this point you have all figured out that I am extremely liberal. I don't want anyone to think that I don't see both sides, because I do, but I just have to debunk the insanity that IS.

Until Next time:
Try not to get your panties in a bunch ;)