OBama Needs To Go

[ILoveFroYo]

looks wrote:

like the average person going get the same coverage that all the ex and present .big elected officials have for them selves and their families.this puts the average citizen .in the same care .now they cant refuse to fund it its their care to and their families so the funds will be their. i love it go Obama.another 4 yrs.this has put a sock in the so called 1% give away they have enjoyed for 100 yrs. wonder why they are mad .having share with the average don't look likes is their thing.but who cares they going bite the dust any ways.one way or the other.bush tax cuts gone more that easy money coming to the 99%.share the wealth.i can tell fro yo .in love with Obama.she be the first in line at the poles to give him the first vote for victory nov. 2th.what a woman..

Now, you don't HONESTLY think that Obamacare is the same health care coverage that our elected (past and present) officials receive do you?!! Surely you aren't that naive!!!
Our elected officials (past and present) get PREMIUM health care coverage while we do not. They aren't going to be subject to this OBAMACARE nightmare. And, who do you think pays for their healthcare? We do!!!!
You say you love Obamacare. How can you possibly say that after everything that I have mentioned about it? Now, why do you suppose that citizens in Europe, Canada, and other countries, come to AMERICA to receive medical treatment-especially since our system is so broken?!!!! It is because the Socialist, government-run healthcare sucks and our healthcare system is the BEST!!!!! While it is not perfect, it sure as HE-- beats Socialist medicine any day!!!! This is what we are headed towards and you want it. You just wait, "looks", until it gets implented (around 2014). I can't wait to see what you think about Obamacare then. It is NOT what you think it is going to be. Do you like waiting in line at Wal-Mart for ten minutes? If you don't, you WON'T like OBAMACARE much.
Now, the 1% are not mad because of Obamacare. They are mad because of the expansion of government at an enormous speed. They are also mad because of Obama's Socialist "redistribution of wealth" philosophy. Obamacare is just another wealth redistribution program in the guise of caring for you. YOU HONESTLY ARE CLUELESS!!!!
Don't you realize that the poor can go into the Emergency Room at any hospital and get medical treatment if they need it? In larger cities, they have hospitals for the poor. The physicians HAVE to treat you in the ER at ANY hospital. It is called the "Hipocratic Oath." Every physician takes that oath.
Now, how much do you think the wealthy ought to pay? They already pay 30-40% in income taxes in addition to other taxes. How much MORE do you WANT them to pay? Since we are talking about fairness, how much do you think that YOU ought to pay? Let me go out on a limb here...you think the wealthy should probably pay about 70% and you think that you should pay 0%. Am I right? Well, if that scenario takes place, then they will only have 30% left to put into their own bank accounts. If that happens, entitlements may be sustained for a year and then the rich will be poor. Do you understand this?
Oh, yes, you are so right...I love Obama just like I can tell you love Romney and the wealthy. Boy, you are a great detective...kind of like Barney Fife.(Ha, LOL!!!!)

[ILoveFroYo]

with wrote:

<quoted text>the help of the congress which he never got the repub's worked against him dummy.you no that.

Let me make this perfectly clear, you are the dummy here!!!! And I will tell you, in small steps, why you are so CLUELESS!!!
(1)First of all, your premise is completely baseless. In 2008-mid January 2009, the Republicans only had control of the White House. Are you with me? Do you understand?
(2)In 2008-mid January 2009, anything that Bush had wanted to pass, would have had to be voted on in a Democratically-controlled House and Senate. Are you still with me? Do you still understand?
(3)From mid January 2009-mid January 2011, the DEMOCRATS had control of the White House, Senate, and the House from 2009-2011. So, during those years, the Republicans couldn't have vetoed ANYTHING. Are you with me? Do you understand?
(4) During mid January 2009-mid January 2011, Obama could have passed ANYTHING if he had wanted to. In other words, Obama didn't need their help in getting anything passed. So, your point about the Republicans not working with him are baseless. Are you still with me? Do you still understand?
(5) How can you possibly make that assertion? As you can easily see, how could the Republicans have worked against him when the Democrats CONTROLLED EVERYTHING?!!!!! Please, I want you to respond. Tell me why!!!! You made the claim, now back it up!!!(6)In November 2010, the Republicans won control of the House. So, from mid January 2011-present, the Democrats still control the White House and the Senate. In other words, the Democrats still control 2/3 of everything. Are you with me? Do you understand?
(7)While he will encounter more vetoes and more stalemates (thank goodness for that), he still has a Senate that is Democratically-controlled and they ALWAYS side with him. He may encounter a little more difficulty, but he still has the help of the Senate.
So, with all due respect, the dummy here is you!!!! Are you with me? Do you understand?

[then]

put it like that ,then the two parties has their finest.Barney and Goober ...

[ILoveFroYo]

then wrote:

put it like that ,then the two parties has their finest.Barney and Goober ...

I was talking to "Looks." I mentioned that he/she was Barney Fife because he/she thought I liked Obama. If he thought that, than he/she certainly is more moronic than I thought.
However, now that you mention it, perhaps you are right.
Obama is a lot like Barney. He couldn't take much teasing, he slept a lot on the job, he showed his skill about law enforcement by trying to get into Otis' subconscience to find out where the moonshine still was, he wasn't good at keeping secrets (you know the episode about the armored truck coming into Mayberry), and no one was afraid of him. So, yes, perhaps that does prove that Obama was the Barney.

[ILoveFroYo]

then wrote:

put it like that ,then the two parties has their finest.Barney and Goober ...

At least with Goober, he had a better personality than Barney, he wasn't quite as egotistical as Barney, he could take teasing better than Barney, and he actually was awake while he was at the gas station.
Goober was also a very good mechanic and was able to multi-task, too. Remember how he was able to take apart that car and assemble it in Andy's office.
Neither Goober nor Barney would be considered the "brightest bulb in the box." However, if you are talking about skills as a mechanic v. skills as a law enforcement officere and detective, I believe Goober has Barney beat hands down.
Do you remember all of the excessive number of tickets Barney handed out? Do you remember that Barney was never allowed to carry a loaded gun? Do you remember when Barney stayed with a family who, every night would rob the local grocery store-and he didn't figure out that they were the criminals? Do you remember that everytime he would join a different police department or climb the law enforcement ladder he would fall flat on his face? Do you remember when he would lock himself in one of the cells? Do you remember when he installed the speakers in the cells so that they could monitor what was being said by the inmates? These speakers were located too high and Barney had to hold Opie up for him to be heard. Do you remember when he bought the different craft activities as a means of rehabilitation and the inmates used them to escape? Do you remember when he got locked into the bank's vault?
Yeah, Obama is definitely the Barney here.

[ILoveFroYo]

then wrote:

put it like that ,then the two parties has their finest.Barney and Goober ...

There are two HUGE differences between Barney and Obama...Barney (1) Barney was not deceptive or destructive.
(2) Obama can sing better than Barney.

[ILoveFroYo]

then wrote:

put it like that ,then the two parties has their finest.Barney and Goober ...

Sorry, there are actually three differences between Obama and Barney.
(1)Barney was not destructive or deceptive.
(2)Obama can sing better than Barney.
(3)Barney can probably throw a baseball better than Obama.

[see]

ILoveFroYo wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry, there are actually three differences between Obama and Barney.
(1)Barney was not destructive or deceptive.
(2)Obama can sing better than Barney.
(3)Barney can probably throw a baseball better than Obama.

look i have already lost my help .my helper has fell in love with Obama's music.she be bumping around the room twisting to that African beat .while i am out working .that's a rep. for you.always sneaking by work..

[I Love FroYo]

see wrote:

<quoted text>look i have already lost my help .my helper has fell in love with Obama's music.she be bumping around the room twisting to that African beat .while i am out working .that's a rep. for you.always sneaking by work..

Oh, Good Lord!!
Are you suggesting that only the Democrats work?(HA LOL!!). Now, come on, you KNOW that is simply NOT TRUE!!!! What a moronic statement for you to make!!!!!! I never thought that you were smart, but with that statement, you remove ALL doubt.
Remember I teach so I am off for a couple of months. However, I go to school a few days a month or so to get prepared for the upcoming year. Sometimes we have meetings and Professional Development seminars that we have to attend throughout the year. Since July is quickly approaching, I will be going to school more often.

[what]

do you teach politics?i have never seen any teacher in the teachers union be against their selves and support a party that is 100% against them.and against the only party that is 100% for them.i don't get it.i cant see any teacher against them selves and education .that don't make any sense at all.

[highup]

ISupportCoalNotOBama wrote:

OBama Is Raseing The Light Bills This Month I Got One For 400 Bucks And Thats BullSh*t Hes Doubleing Every Thing What Was A Dollar Is 2 Dollars Whats 5 Dollars Is 10 Dollars Its Gonna Take Every Thing We Get To Pay Our Bills And Keep Food On The Table This BullSh*t Has To Stop OBama Ever Since Hes When In Hes Been Trying To Kill Kentucky And I,m Sick Of It

Thats AEP raising our electric bill. Obama dont even live in ky.

[Lols]

You guys are full of shit.... If Romney gets elected he is going to cut Medicaid, Medicare, Food stamps, etc. Then he is going to cut the tax corporations pay and put more of a burden on the poor.

Go ahead and vote for Romney, but don't complain when you don't get your check and food stamps at the first of the month...

[dont think]

Lols wrote:

You guys are full of shit.... If Romney gets elected he is going to cut Medicaid, Medicare, Food stamps, etc. Then he is going to cut the tax corporations pay and put more of a burden on the poor.
Go ahead and vote for Romney, but don't complain when you don't get your check and food stamps at the first of the month...

these edits around understand that.when they say o lord .that not the lord most know that's their pocket book loosing money they stole from the poor.and will take the rest if elected .but like you said let them learn the hard way.that all they understand.anyways..

[that guy]

I Love FroYo wrote:

<quoted text>
Yesterday was a sad day for us. Just one more baby step towards Socialism.
It's amazing, isn't it, the vast majority of those who posted yesterday thought it was a huge victory for Obama, he would be catapulted to being the greatest president ever, and how wonderful OBAMACARE is going to be. How it will help the poor and middle class. My, have the mainstream media and OBAMA done a number on them.
Now, I wonder how all of these people who LOVE OBAMACARE and think that it's the best, will like it when they have to wait in line for services-kind of like that Russian hat you mentioned a few weeks ago? Will they like that all of their drugs that they've had no trouble in getting will either be banned or rationed? Will they like it when their physician has chosen not to take any OBAMACARE patients? Will they like it when they have to pay increased taxes and receive worse healthcare? etc.
Just like a bunch of liberal idiots aren't they?
Hey, Guy, what did you think about the Judas yesterday? I've called Chief Justice Roberts the Judas of the Supreme Court.

Right from the beginning I've had reservations about John Roberts but I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was. I guess the main thing was his age. It just seemed to me that he was awfully young to have been appointed Chief Justice. Young ... and good looking too. I know that you can't always judge a person by his age and appearance, but it just always seemed to me like John Roberts just looked more like a politician than a jurist. I feared that he was a 'sleeper' right from the beginning.

Though I admittedly don't follow 'The Court' as closely as I use to, the events of the day that Roberts ALLEGEDLY administered the Oath of Office to Obama really made the short-hairs on the back of my neck stand straight up. If you will recall, during the public ceremony of the ALLEGED Inauguration, Roberts made a 'seemingly' minor, inadvertent grammatical mistake during the reading of the 'Oath of Office'. Everyone (the media, etc.) just laughed it off, as if it were inconsequential, as if; "oh well ... anyone can make a mistake". The 'public' Inauguration was then 'continued' to a PRIVATE CEREMONY in the basement of the White House, with only a few PUBLIC OFFICIALS in attendance ... and the Oath of Office was ALLEGEDLY repeated. Everyone then appeared to be satisfied. Everyone, that is ... but me.

Having a somewhat extensive, albeit informal, education 'at Law', and, having more than average hands-on experience as a 'pro se' litigant (I once took paper to the Supreme Court myself), and, having personally read literally hundreds and hundreds of Supreme Court decisions ... I just happen to know ... these people DO NOT MAKE CASUAL, INADVERTENT, GRAMMATICAL ERRORS! It just does not happen. Not only are these nine Justices great and learned legal scholars ... they are also masters, in full command, of the English language (probably even more than you are, FroYo, and certainly more than me). It is simply not plausible to believe that John Roberts "accidentally" screwed-up his administration of the Oath of Office to Barrack-Hussein-Barry-Soetoro- Obama (or whatever his name really is). I, for one, do not buy it.

cont ....

[that guy]

cont ...

The American people have the right to actually see and hear the President swear fidelity to uphold the Constitution. I do not recall ever hearing of an American President being "sworn-in" in a private ceremony ... and it just stinks to high-heaven that such are the circumstances behind Obama's so-called Inauguration. When you combine this "inadvertent mistake" by the Chief Justice, with the many issues raised by the "Birther" movement, concerning whether Obama is even eligible to sit as President in the first place, the stench becomes even more onerous, doesn't it?

Now, with talk of impeachment being tossed about so causally, let me ask you this: Can a person who is not sworn to the Constitution even stand for impeachment for violations to that ALLEGED oath of office? And the short answer is: No! I don't think so. Without that Oath of Office, Obama is nothing more than a fraud and a defacto dictator. He is literally above the Law.

So I'm not really surprised by 'The Court's' findings, and, I'm not really surprised that John Roberts wrote the "majority opinion". It is common for 'The Court' to construe a statute "liberally" (meaning, in it's most favorable light) to conformance to the Constitution. That's just what they do. However, in this case (and I admittedly have not yet read the entire case), it is my understanding that 'The Court' found many Constitutional irregularities and could only find the statute "Constitutional" if they construed the mandate to be a tax. In view of both the Executive's statements and the Congressional debates, to the contrary, specifically denying that the law constituted a tax ... I feel it was inappropriate for Chief Justice Roberts to make such a 'construction' to the complete contrary of the expressed legislative intent. That's just a little too much of a "liberal construction" for my taste.

So yes, FroYo, I believe your basic assessment is correct, for a number of different reasons. But, at the bottom line, I have no doubt that John Roberts played the part of Judas.

It's a sad day in America.

[I Love FroYo]

highup wrote:

<quoted text>Thats AEP raising our electric bill. Obama dont even live in ky.

No, he doesn't live in Kentucky. But, his policies affect ALL of us!!!

[I Love FroYo]

Lols wrote:

You guys are full of shit.... If Romney gets elected he is going to cut Medicaid, Medicare, Food stamps, etc. Then he is going to cut the tax corporations pay and put more of a burden on the poor.
Go ahead and vote for Romney, but don't complain when you don't get your check and food stamps at the first of the month...

Well, you obviously live in the right city under Obama...Broken Arrow. Unfortunately, everyone is broke under Obama.
Don't you understand that Romney does NOT want to cut Medicaid, Medicare, Food Stamps etc? The Republicans don't want to cut these programs either. But, with that said, they know that our country just can't afford to sustain these programs as they are currently implemented. They SIMPLY want to revamp these programs and eliminate fraudulent claims.
Don't you understand that the entitlement programs have broken our country? So, Romney just wants to revamp them so they will be sustainable for ourselves and the future generations. Why can't you see that?
What do you mean the "burden on the poor?" They are the ones getting the hand outs!!!! It is the middle class individuals who are burdened more than anyone-because they don't qualify for these programs AND they are the ones paying the taxes so that EVERYONE can continue to receive them. Do you understand?
You mentioned Medicare and Medicaid. Just wait until Obamacare gets implemented. The changes to our healthcare system and Medicare/Medicaid are going to make you LIVID!!! You think it's going to be great. But, wait...the Devil is in the details.
If it were not for the tax breaks that businesses and the wealthy receive, they would not be able to hire any new employees and may have to let some go. So, contrary to your liberal beliefs, tax breaks are actually VERY beneficial for EVERYONE.

[I Love FroYo]

dont think wrote:

<quoted text>these edits around understand that.when they say o lord .that not the lord most know that's their pocket book loosing money they stole from the poor.and will take the rest if elected .but like you said let them learn the hard way.that all they understand.anyways..

Oh, Good Lord!!!!!!
Now, you accuse the rich of stealing from the poor. Ok, BACK UP YOUR ALLEGATION!!!!
With all due respect, you happen to be the most moronic individual on this forum.
Now, tell me, AND I WANT AN ANSWER...How are the rich STEALING from the poor?!!!
I want an answer from you on these questions: if you needed the money, who would you ask? Would you ask your rich uncle or your homeless/poor brother? So, why would a rich person steal from someone who has no money? Aren't the rich and middle class individuals paying the taxes so that YOU can enjoy your entitlements? So, it seems to me, given that logic, that the POOR are stealing from the rich!!!!! If you CANNOT answer those questions, you are nothing more than a bag of liberal hot air and you have lost all credibility.
I am so tired of your rhetoric. "The rich steal from the poor." "It's all Bush's fault." "It's the NRA, Texans, and gun shop owner's fault for Fast and Furious." What's worse, you had never even heard of Brian Terry. These are the only things you can say. You know what they say when you used the same tired rhetoric-you know that Obama can't run on his failed presidency, failed programs, failed economy, failed stimulus, increased unemployment/jobless rates so you can only respond by blaming the rich, Bush, and the NRA. If those things don't work, you attack.

[I Love FroYo]

what wrote:

do you teach politics?i have never seen any teacher in the teachers union be against their selves and support a party that is 100% against them.and against the only party that is 100% for them.i don't get it.i cant see any teacher against them selves and education .that don't make any sense at all.

No, I do not teach politics? I am an elementary and special needs teacher.
Let me clarify something for you, I am NOT a member of the union. We are not forced to join one. We are encouraged, but not coerced. I just don't think the teachers' union is looking out for the students. Sorry, that's just the way I see it
Let's look at a couple of scenarios here:
Scenario #1: A newly hired teacher wins a Teacher of the Year award and she loses her job. In the same school, you have an average TENURED teacher who gets to keep her job. Now, why do you think the AVERAGE teacher was allowed to stay while the Teacher of the Year recepient was let go? Do you think that simply because a teacher has more years under her belt makes her a better teacher? Doesn't the award merit another year of employment? Do you think the union in this situation, has the children's best interest in mind when they let this award-winning teacher go?
Scenario #2: A school in New York had several teachers who were not performing well. So, because they belonged in the union, they were not laid off. Instead, they were allowed to go to school, every day, and go to "The Rubber Room."
Now, obviously you don't watch Fox so I will tell you what the Rubber Room is. It is a room where these teachers go to every day and stay from 8AM to 3PM. They do NOTHING and they have no contact with their students. However, they STILL continue to receive a paycheck. Once again, why do you think the teachers continue to go to work, have no contact with children-therefore, they aren't working, and they receive a paycheck? Could it be the unions?
You're right, most Democrats are for unions while most Republicans are not. I am not a Republican because they don't like unions nor am I against unions because I am Republican. I'm Republican because I stand for what they believe in-but I do have some Libertarian tendencies.
I'm not shooting myself in the foot because I don't like unions. Do you honestly feel that the unions are in it for the teacher, education, and the kids? I CHOOSE to not join the union because they ABSOLUTELY SERVE NO BENEFIT to the kids and education.
Perhaps in the '20s,'30s, and '40s, when a person worked in deplorable working conditions, the unions were beneficial. But, after the workplaces improved, there really wasn't any need for them anymore.

[I Love FroYo]

Hey, "Guy," you're right...Roberts does look more like a politician than a jurist. We all know what you get with youth and good looks... you get Obama.
I hardly ever watch the Supreme Court either-only with critical issues like this. My jaw hit the floor when the decision was rendered. I thought that Roberts had definitely betrayed us.
I remember when Obama took that Oath of Office a second time (Wink Wink). They should have made him take the Oath publicly as it had ALWAYS been done. If this had happened during the Bush administration, they would have MADE him publicly take the Oath. But with Obama, he gets a pass.
Both you and the justices have a much larger vocabulary and a much more extensive command of the English/legal language than I do.
I agree with you that it does not seem plausible that Roberts had inadvertently omitted something in the Oath of Office. He didn't seem to have any trouble in administering the Oath to Kagan or Sotomayor. This was not a "Biden gaffe."
You are also correct that without having "publicly" taken that second Oath of Office, he wasn't sworn to the Constitution-Gee, I never had thought of that. So, if he did not "swear to uphold the Constitution," he could just rip it to shreds and not be impeached for any of his violations.
Yes, his whole presidency has been quite onerous since day one if you ask me. With every passing day, the stench grows stronger and stronger.