I don’t know much about politics currently and I would like to be able to keep up with and contribute to political conversations.
Photoshop Life
The weblog of the people, for the people. Discussing the issues that matter most. Plus some crazy humor thrown in here and there.
http://www.investors.com/NewsAndAnal…aspx?id=506199
Doctor shortage anyone? Rationing anyone?
from the article:
|
The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part.
|
The plan sucks, and the vast majority of medical Doctors know this.
But don’t you worry your little liberal heads one bit. The DimocRATS will ram it through ‘by any legislative means necessary‘.
I wonder if Van Jones will call the Dims ‘(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)s’? :bored:
Well duh!
This is one time that I think even our most conservative forumites will agree with the President.
And now we have people in Congress labeling anyone that disagrees with obama racist (well pelosi and reed have been on this train for some time now, but who takes those nuts seriously?) And just last night, jimmy the worst POTUS of all time carter called Joe Wilson a racist. jimmy, jimmy, jimmy, did you escape the old folks home again? I think he needs to go back to bed.
Anyway, we can see the pattern here. We knew it was going to happen. Democrats are in free fall, their power structure and their Messiah are threatened, it is time to implement operation Lie and Distort, code name RACIST. So the stage is being set, be prepared to realize that if you disagree with the current POTUS, you will be called out for what you really are, A STINKING RACIST, and as a RACIST you views will be dismissed. I mean really, who the hell do you think you are disagreeing with the chosen one? DON’T YOU KNOW HE IS HERE TO SAVE US ALL?
You freaking RACIST!!
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009…ilson-rebuked/
In an obvious reference to the Ku Klux Klan, Rep. Hank Johnson, D-Ga., says that people will put on "white hoods and ride through the countryside" if emerging racist attitudes, which he says were subtly supported by Rep. Joe Wilson, are not rebuked.
Rep. Joe Wilson’s outburst last week drew new recriminations from his colleagues Tuesday, with a member of the Congressional Black Caucus suggesting that a failure to rebuke the South Carolina Republican would be tantamount to supporting the most blatant form of organized racism in American history.
He did not help the cause of diversity and tolerance with his remarks — if I were a betting man I would say it instigated more racist sentiment," Johnson said Tuesday. "And so I guess we’ll probably have folks putting on white hoods and white uniforms again and riding through the countryside intimidating people. … That’s the logical conclusion if this kind of attitude is not rebuked, and Congressman Wilson represents it. He’s the face of it."
Johnson seemed to reference the protests held in Washington, D.C., on Saturday in making his claim. While many protesters were there to demonstrate against big government and federal over-spending, Johnson argued that a "fringe" element is motivated by race and that Wilson "winked" at that fringe with his behavior.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt…_putdowns.html
"Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt…_putdowns.html
"Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”
http://www.politico.com/blogs/glennt…_putdowns.html
"Likewise, it has been held that a member could not:
• call the President a “liar.”
• call the President a “hypocrite.”
• describe the President’s veto of a bill as “cowardly.”
• charge that the President has been “intellectually dishonest.”
• refer to the President as “giving aid and comfort to the enemy.”
• refer to alleged “sexual misconduct on the President’s part.”
|
Afghan rift bared as US military chief challenges Barack Obama Deep rifts at the heart of Western policy on Afghanistan were laid bare yesterday when President Obama’s top military adviser challenged him to authorise a troop surge that his most senior congressional allies have said they will oppose. Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that more US troops as well as a rapid increase in the size and capability of the Afghan army were needed to carry out the President’s own strategy for prevailing in Afghanistan as the eighth anniversary of a debilitating war approaches. His remarks to a Senate hearing came as Bob Ainsworth, the British Defence Secretary, said that the Taleban had proven a resilient enemy. “We’re far from succeeding against them yet but I reject that we’re not making progress,” he said at King’s College London. Mr Obama also rejected claims that Afghanistan was turning into a quagmire akin to Vietnam, but his immediate dilemma is political: approving a surge could trigger a high-level mutiny within his own party. Making matters worse, a new poll showed that public support for the war has slumped since April. “Each historical moment is different,” Mr Obama said in an interview published yesterday. “You never step into the same river twice, and so Afghanistan is not Vietnam.” The call for more troops is supported by military commanders and Senate Republicans, including Senator John McCain, who warned yesterday that a “wait and see” approach to a surge risked repeating the “nearly catastrophic mistakes” that the US made in Iraq. General Stanley McChrystal, in charge of US and Nato forces in Afghanistan, is expected to make specific troop requests to add to the 68,000 already committed to Afghanistan within the next fortnight. A central plank of his strategy, led by General Graham Lamb, of Britain, would be to try to induce low and middle-ranking Taleban fighters to fight for the Government, repeating tactics pioneered by General Lamb in Iraq two years ago, Admiral Mullen said. Britain has about 9,000 troops in the country. If he accepts his commanders’ recommendations, Mr Obama will have to remake the case for a war that had overwhelming public support until this year. He has a tough fight to persuade fellow Democrats that new troops are needed. Democratic senators lined up yesterday to reject calls for more US combat troops. Senator Russ Feingold warned that he and “a growing chorus” of Democrats would refuse to back sending more reinforcements. Calling for a flexible timetable for withdrawal, he insisted that “continuing to build up troops in Afghanistan is the exact formula to increase support for the Taleban”. The argument was echoed in London by the International Institute for Strategic Studies, which warned that the continued presence of foreign troops in Afghanistan could be more destabilising than withdrawal. Admiral Mullen’s appearance before the Senate Armed Forces Committee was ostensibly an uncontroversial renomination for two more years as America’s most senior uniformed officer. In practice, he had to walk a tightrope, defending General McChrystal’s recent assessment of the Afghan security situation while explaining his failure so far to state the number of extra troops he needs, and making the case for a surge without prejudging the decisions of his Commander-in-Chief. “I support a properly resourced, classically pursued counter-insurgency strategy,” he told the committee. “You can’t do that from offshore and you can’t do that just by killing the bad guys. You have to be there.” Asked by Mr McCain if the preferred Democratic solution of leaving security to a strengthened Afghan army would suffice, Admiral Mullen said: “No, sir.” Mr McCain then referred to speculation that Mr Obama had delayed tackling the issue of specific troop numbers because of the drain on his time and political capital caused by the healthcare debate. “I believe the President can do both,” his former opponent in the White House race said. Yesterday the debate was decorous. It is likely to turn acrimonious in the weeks ahead as Republicans train their fire on delays that they will argue have put American lives at risk. When Admiral Mullen revealed that General Lamb had initiated an effort to win over Taleban fighters, he was asked why it had taken so long. “It has not been an area of focus,” he said. |
More at link.
Another lie of Barack’s, I remember him, PROMISING, during the campaign to do "whatever it takes" to win in Afghanistan and bring Bin Laden to justice.
Yeah Barack, put our troops in danger because your party may get mad at you.
Funny how no one mentions the wars anymore now that Barack is POTUS.
And what REALLY stinks is, our own freaking media aren’t reporting this, we have to get the news from the UK. Hypocrites