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

Mixed Messages on The Afghan Front.

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

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

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 ;)