I started a whole bunch of Obama threads on the other board

A lot of things.

Could have fooled me

Still Banned


I might use my work email address

And start a new account


But I won't be gs78

Use another name



I need to start a George W Bush " The Greatest President of the 21st Century Thread"

And how we need to build a Monument for Bush

That should make everyone happy

Why not go back to a Reagan Conservative! Give it some time for people to realize how safe Bush kept us these past 8 years! Right now all people see is the negatives... just think of all the good he could have done if he had not been forced into a war on Terrorists not long after taking office. People forget we were going into a recession at the end of Clinton's Presidency (internet bubble burst). And Bush got things going well again fairly quick. Only problem is the Repubs left their conservative roots and became spend-a-holics!

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

Only problem is the Repubs left their conservative roots and became spend-a-holics!

For their sake, they had better learn an important lesson: Don't try to copy the other party - if you do you'll never win an election because the other party has been doing it longer.

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

Why not go back to a Reagan Conservative! Give it some time for people to realize how safe Bush kept us these past 8 years! Right now all people see is the negatives... just think of all the good he could have done if he had not been forced into a war on Terrorists not long after taking office. People forget we were going into a recession at the end of Clinton's Presidency (internet bubble burst). And Bush got things going well again fairly quick. Only problem is the Repubs left their conservative roots and became spend-a-holics!

If Clinton had not ignored Bin Laden

The War on Terror might have started in the mid to late 90s

Not 2001


We need another Reagan to step to the plate


Obama is like Jimmy Carter


In 2012

Can the Republicans find a Reagan


John McCain sure as hell wasn't the answer

A once proud Maverick became a Bob Dole 96 like candidate for the GOP

gs78 wrote:

GoGetEmTigers wrote:

Why not go back to a Reagan Conservative! Give it some time for people to realize how safe Bush kept us these past 8 years! Right now all people see is the negatives... just think of all the good he could have done if he had not been forced into a war on Terrorists not long after taking office. People forget we were going into a recession at the end of Clinton's Presidency (internet bubble burst). And Bush got things going well again fairly quick. Only problem is the Repubs left their conservative roots and became spend-a-holics!

If Clinton had not ignored Bin Laden

The War on Terror might have started in the mid to late 90s

Not 2001


We need another Reagan to step to the plate


Obama is like Jimmy Carter


In 2012

Can the Republicans find a Reagan


John McCain sure as hell wasn't the answer

A once proud Maverick became a Bob Dole 96 like candidate for the GOP

Very true, Dole was a bad choice in 96. I ended up voting 3rd party that year. I could not stomach either of the major candidates! (I voted Taxpayers Party - now unified under the Constitution Party)

This year was even worse. If it was not for Palin (a fiscal conservative), I would have gone with Constitution Party again. McCain was my last choice of the Repub. candidates!

I got a feeling we gonna have 8 years of Obama



We gonna be more Socialist than Canada


I was watching the Wings on FSN tonight


Mickey Redmond made a comment about how far 5 bucks goes in Canada


Until the Government gets a hold of it


And they decide how much you get back


When they feel like doing it



Well Said


Mickey!

What's so bad about Canada? They have less crime than we do and a better health care system. When was the last time they were in a war?

gs78 wrote:

tigersaint wrote:

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

Stupid board We're supposed to have free speech no matter how stupid. The Supreme Court once ruled IN FAVOR of the American Nazi party that wanted to have a demonstration in Skokie, Ill (a town with a large Jewish population and quite a few Holocaust survivors).

While I myself am not an anti-Semite (I happen to know/like/respect some Jewish people personally) I do agree with that ruling. The rally, while in incredibly poor taste, did not cause harm to anyone and nobody was forced to attend.

And were my posts that offensive



Other than my Barack the Magic Negro Reference



Why are people so afraid of the truth

Yeah, that one did it.....

What's so bad about the word Negro?


You have the Negro Leagues


United Negro College Fund


The three race classifications are Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negroid


which I believe the word Negro comes from

Nothing wrong with the word "Negro"....in context. The way that you used it makes it sound racial....which it was intended to do.

Why should the color of the guys skin matter? He will be your President in January, like it or not.

kharmon wrote:

What's so bad about Canada? They have less crime than we do and a better health care system. When was the last time they were in a war?

And their dollar is outperforming ours lately.

Canada must be doing SOMETHING right.....

tigersaint wrote:

Why should the color of the guys skin matter? He will be your President in January, like it or not.

To me the color of his skin doesn't matter. Rather his views are what I have a problem with.

tigersaint wrote:

kharmon wrote:

What's so bad about Canada? They have less crime than we do and a better health care system. When was the last time they were in a war?

And their dollar is outperforming ours lately.

Canada must be doing SOMETHING right.....

They must. For those that say Obama is going to turn our country into one like Canada, I hope you are right.

kharmon wrote:

What's so bad about Canada? They have less crime than we do and a better health care system. When was the last time they were in a war?

They have troops in Afghanistan


Ask Mickey Redmond

He was the one who said it

I just posted his comment

tigersaint wrote:

gs78 wrote:

tigersaint wrote:

gs78 wrote:

catbox_9 wrote:

Stupid board We're supposed to have free speech no matter how stupid. The Supreme Court once ruled IN FAVOR of the American Nazi party that wanted to have a demonstration in Skokie, Ill (a town with a large Jewish population and quite a few Holocaust survivors).

While I myself am not an anti-Semite (I happen to know/like/respect some Jewish people personally) I do agree with that ruling. The rally, while in incredibly poor taste, did not cause harm to anyone and nobody was forced to attend.

And were my posts that offensive



Other than my Barack the Magic Negro Reference



Why are people so afraid of the truth

Yeah, that one did it.....

What's so bad about the word Negro?


You have the Negro Leagues


United Negro College Fund


The three race classifications are Caucasian, Mongoloid and Negroid


which I believe the word Negro comes from

Nothing wrong with the word "Negro"....in context. The way that you used it makes it sound racial....which it was intended to do.

I was trying to be funny

Barack the Magic Negro parody reference


It was on Rush Limbaugh

TG wrote:

tigersaint wrote:

Why should the color of the guys skin matter? He will be your President in January, like it or not.

To me the color of his skin doesn't matter. Rather his views are what I have a problem with.

This isn't a knock on our neighbor's to the north...but I hope to God that we don't end up with a National Healthcare system.

A national healthcare system would, in a sense, give our government more control over our daily lives than the constitution gives them the right to. Not only that, it would cost this country something it needs more of...Jobs!

A healthcare system that covers all Americans would mean the following:

Anyone who has healthcare provided by their employers would lose it. Why on Earth would any emplpoyer continue to pay for something that the government provides for "free"? They won't! It just doesn't make good business sense to continue to provide a benefit that isn't needed because the government takes care of it.

Secondly, ask the Canadians how long it takes for them to get in to see the Dr. My former family physician (a Canadian native) moved to the US to get away from their healthcare system. He said his patients were having to wait, on average, 6 months to get in. Imagine if you had a serious illness and your Dr told you the earliest you could get in would be 6 months from now...

Why the long wait? Well....here in the US, if someone doesn't have insurance, they go to the Dr as little as possible. However, if everyone has insurance, then the Dr's office is going to be packed with people who have a runny nose, the common cold, etc. Not to mention the jobs that would be lost....insurance agents, Nurses, nurses assistants...you name it. If a Dr. who gets paid by the government is going to receive about 1/3 of the billed charges (and that's being generous, sometimes its not even that much). Due to the reduced payments from the government, they will have to do one of 2 things...lay-off staff, or cut their pay. Dr's are, after all, businessmen. They have expenses to pay to stay in business. Would you want to get a shot or prepped for surgery from an angry nurse who just had to take a $5.00/ hr cut in pay? I know I wouldn't. For all that nurse knows...her job may be cut next. Talk about an increase in unemployment!

Look...the bottom line is this...we live in the USA. Our constitution was designed to keep government out of our lives as much as possible. By instituting a national healthcare system, we are inviting the government to control when we get seen by a Dr, and what course of treatment we receive. This isn't BS...this is a fact. There are several of our veterans who have VA insurance, but are continually being denied healthcare that the government deems to be "unneccessary." I'm sorry...but if MY doctor thinks a procedure is neccessary, who the hell is the government to determine that it's not? Since when is it the governments business what treatment my doctor gives me? It's not their job to determine what I get treated for and what I don't. I don't want our government interferring with my personal affairs any more than absolutely neccessary...and that includes my personal health.

Ohios#1TigerFan wrote:

This isn't a knock on our neighbor's to the north...but I hope to God that we don't end up with a National Healthcare system.

A national healthcare system would, in a sense, give our government more control over our daily lives than the constitution gives them the right to. Not only that, it would cost this country something it needs more of...Jobs!

A healthcare system that covers all Americans would mean the following:

Anyone who has healthcare provided by their employers would lose it. Why on Earth would any emplpoyer continue to pay for something that the government provides for "free"? They won't! It just doesn't make good business sense to continue to provide a benefit that isn't needed because the government takes care of it.

Secondly, ask the Canadians how long it takes for them to get in to see the Dr. My former family physician (a Canadian native) moved to the US to get away from their healthcare system. He said his patients were having to wait, on average, 6 months to get in. Imagine if you had a serious illness and your Dr told you the earliest you could get in would be 6 months from now...

Why the long wait? Well....here in the US, if someone doesn't have insurance, they go to the Dr as little as possible. However, if everyone has insurance, then the Dr's office is going to be packed with people who have a runny nose, the common cold, etc. Not to mention the jobs that would be lost....insurance agents, Nurses, nurses assistants...you name it. If a Dr. who gets paid by the government is going to receive about 1/3 of the billed charges (and that's being generous, sometimes its not even that much). Due to the reduced payments from the government, they will have to do one of 2 things...lay-off staff, or cut their pay. Dr's are, after all, businessmen. They have expenses to pay to stay in business. Would you want to get a shot or prepped for surgery from an angry nurse who just had to take a $5.00/ hr cut in pay? I know I wouldn't. For all that nurse knows...her job may be cut next. Talk about an increase in unemployment!

Look...the bottom line is this...we live in the USA. Our constitution was designed to keep government out of our lives as much as possible. By instituting a national healthcare system, we are inviting the government to control when we get seen by a Dr, and what course of treatment we receive. This isn't BS...this is a fact. There are several of our veterans who have VA insurance, but are continually being denied healthcare that the government deems to be "unneccessary." I'm sorry...but if MY doctor thinks a procedure is neccessary, who the hell is the government to determine that it's not? Since when is it the governments business what treatment my doctor gives me? It's not their job to determine what I get treated for and what I don't. I don't want our government interferring with my personal affairs any more than absolutely neccessary...and that includes my personal health.

But Wait?

Didn't Obama claim that everyone[ that doesn't have health insurance] will have the same health care benefits as members of Congress?


How the hell he gonna pull that off?

We already have Medicaid and Medicare


How much more Government Health Programs do we need


Especially those that cost taxpayers money and deny needed treatment for people

Quote :

Didn't Obama claim that everyone[ that doesn't have health insurance] will have the same health care benefits as members of Congress?


How the hell he gonna pull that off?

That's what he claims...but answer me this? If our men and women who risk their lives for our freedom are being denied adequate healthcare, what in the world makes people think that what the government "offers" us is going to be any better? Veterans deserve better healthcare than they are getting, so to think that a national plan is going to be better than what veterans get is just rediculous. But...oh well...there's not much we can do now. Personally, the healthcare I get from my employer is better than anything the government could offer me, and I'm at risk of losing it thanks to Obama and his "brilliant" idea of a healthcare system for all Americans. I guess it goes to show what some of us have been saying all along...Democrats in Washington only favor a bigger government. They don't give a rats ass about us...they only care about getting re-elected.

I can give you the Liberals likely Answer


They would blame Bush for sending the troops to fight terror in the first place

I'm not a fan of your avatar Ohios #1 fan....

But he is right TG

Sadly

He is right

I know. thats why I don't like it.

TG wrote:

I'm not a fan of your avatar Ohios #1 fan....

Sadly though...it needed to be done. I'm all for taking care of our own, but not when it involves more government spending or big government. The more we allow them into our daily lives, the less we control. This is supposed to be a government of the people For the people...not for Some people by the most powerful people.

And Obama wants to close Guantanamo Prison

He wants special trials for some

Others will be released


Let Muslim Terrorist Suspects go free! Right Obama!


When another 9-11 happens

And it will


We will know why

tigersaint wrote:

kharmon wrote:

What's so bad about Canada? They have less crime than we do and a better health care system. When was the last time they were in a war?

And their dollar is outperforming ours lately.

Canada must be doing SOMETHING right.....

Only thing Canada is right about is having 19 be the legal drinking age


I think it is ridiculous people between 18-21 can die on the battlefield, vote, smoke, go to adult prisons for crimes committed; To name a few things!

But they can't legally drink a beer until 21