It was from the Weekly Standard can't find it again. But I remembered this loon because even Dems turned on her.

lol..charmin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Weekly_Standard

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...5/079tehyf.asp


i googled cynthia mckinney september 11....

http://www.911truth.org/osamas/mckinney.html

good for her;) I wish DT was around back then so The RIGHT could be posting their concerns about Bush. I'm sure the anger would have been the same:rolleyes:

The lady is craaaaaazzzzy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uttYsDJvboI

no doubt the right is as anxious to question one of their party members as the left would be.

I wasted 5 minutes of my life watching half of this? Every family/party has the weird Uncle...next

[quote=GBBob]It is a stretch to link the war and healthcare. The problem with Obamas program is that even though we all admit our current system is flawed, his program will be much worse. The fact remains that #1 this is not the right time to try to do something like this (unless you admit politically that this is the only time that it has a prayer of getting through, which it doesnt) and #2 it is a really bad plan with a lot of unanswered questions. The fact that there is discord should be the signal to come to the table with the opposition party and attempt to put something together in a bi-partisan manner (you know how he said he was going to operate?). However he continues to campaign in staged sessions that no doubt will lead to further divides. This program is not only going to be a drain on the economy, it will lower healthcare standards and care in our country overall, put the govt in places it shouldnt be and further injure small business with its ridiclous taxes. The fact is that this program should be despised by the very people Obama loves to claim he support, the "middle class". They are the ones that will suffer as the rich will still pay privately for their own care after the insurance companies are all gone but the suckers in the middle will have to turn to this govt run future disaster. The poor will still be poor but they sure will be able to visit the doctor when their back is sore from sleeping on the street.

[quote=Cannon Shell]
Why is it a stretch to link the two? Each administration has/had their "signature" agendas. One was to go to war in Iraq, the other's is to improve Health Care. Even at each's worse, which has no upside, or, less of a downside?

Are you kidding? Bush was savaged practically daily for the last 4 years. The War protests? The protests about the election. The people calling for him to be arrested on war crimes (and still hear that bs), the people that camped outside his house in TX? The left is far more radical than the right. Remember leftist organizations like the ACLU are the ones that defend terrorists like Padilla. Whats going on now is so trumped up by the left and media that it is laughable. MSNBC would have rooted for the British in the Revolutionary war. Oh those scary town hall meetings....its laughable.

[quote=GBBob]Au contraire. The goal isnt to improve healthcare, it is to control healthcare. A big difference.

[quote=GBBob]And the truth is that the health care plan currently suggested will cause a whole lot more pain and suffering to undeserving Americans than the war has. The downside to the healthcare plan is a massive intrusion into the lives of private citizens by the govt brought to you by people that went ape shi t when Bush tapped phones of suspected terrorists because it was such an imposition on our rights. We have won and lost wars before. This changes the country in a completely negative way. If they wanted to improve healthcare it would be pretty simple. Write laws without healthcare lobbists present, provide the insurance companies subsidies to cover more working citizens, kick start the economy to allow business to create more jobs with real stimlus and enforce the laws. People who are poor already receive medical care on our dime anyway in the form on increased premiums and costs.

Stop getting mad at us and think about what is being proposed. Just because you are a BHL doesnt mean you have to agree with everything this guy does especially when much of it would be fiercely opposed by you if the other side was proposing it.

Chuck..I am still trying to figure out the "Road to where?"

dinner

It's like fighting vermin. You get rid of them by paying money. You think you have separation, but eventually they will come back n' do damage again. You pay money again, but you can't really ever win. Mainly, because they just will make more. This is Islam. A quarter of the world's population giving the other three quarters nothing but endless trouble.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...072865070.html
A whole buch of Liberals are now boycotting Whole foods because this guy had the audacity to give his opinion which includes several great points and shows how he is doing a good job of taking care of his own employees health care. Just in case you thought that the left actually cared about the well being of people and not this twisted version of nirvanna that they are seeking. Of course when the other side doesnt agree with something they are labeled "unamerican". Maybe that strict fundementlist GOP member Riot can enlighten us as to why people would feel the need to boycott a place that does a great job of providing healthcare for its employees? If you arent a trial lawyer, member of Acorn or an insurance company exec why would his plan sound bad?

i read his article, and thought he had some genuinely good ideas-certainly better than some i've seen bandied about. ahhh....but suggesting people might have to take some of the onus on themselves for why they have some of their illnesses-no wonder the liberal mind is upset. after all, lately this country has become the land of 'it's not MY fault'. his tort reform idea won't fly either, the lawyers that make up the vast majority of our legislatures would never go for that.

i agree with what he said, that there needs to be an overhaul-but at what expense? we can't afford what is currently in the works.

i went to factcheck, and here's more on the issue-i may have put this up already, i don't recall:


http://www.factcheck.org/2009/07/oba...ws-conference/

excerpt~

Summary

President Obama tried to sell his health care overhaul in prime time, mangling some facts in the process. He also strained to make the job sound easier to pay for than experts predict.

■Obama promised once again that a health care overhaul “will be paid for.” But congressional budget experts say the bills they’ve seen so far would add hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit over the next decade.
■He said the plan "that I put forward" would cover at least 97 percent of all Americans. Actually, the plan he campaigned on would cover far less than that, and only one of the bills now being considered in Congress would do that.
■He said the "average American family is paying thousands" as part of their premiums to cover uncompensated care for the uninsured, implying that expanded coverage will slash insurance costs. But the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation puts the cost per family figure at $200.
■Obama claimed his budget "reduced federal spending over the next 10 years by $2.2 trillion" compared with where it was headed before. Not true. Even figures from his own budget experts don’t support that. The Congressional Budget Office projects a $2.7 trillion increase, not a $2.2 trillion cut.
■The president said that the United States spends $6,000 more on average than other countries on health care. Actually, U.S. per capita spending is about $2,500 more than the next highest-spending country. Obama’s figure was a White House-calculated per-family estimate.

Obama lives in continual campaign mode where lying is completely acceptable.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...uth-hurts.html

A Brits view on what we are looking at. Particularly telling was the part talkinf about 51% of British men were alive 5 years after being diagnosed with prostate cancer while 91% of American men were alive whne diagnosed with the same condition.