On 3/24/2010 5:50 PM, Tim Attwood wrote:
>> But, unfortunately, its also true that one of the things people are
>> good at is taking a lie, telling it often enough, and getting enough
>> "apparent" positive results from doing so, that they provisionally,
>> then finally completely fall for it themselves.
>
> That reminds me of Obama-care.
Which version? The real one, which includes a mass of shit that 
Republicans insisted be added, then refused to vote for, none of which 
does more than 10% of what any other country in the west has done to try 
to fix theirs, or the one that is made up of lie, after lie, after lie, 
about what it contains, while ***never*** actually linking to the text 
of the actual document, so people can see what it actually does say?

You know.. The "40% of Republicans think Obama is a socialist Muslim 
anti-Christ, out to turn us into a new China.", versus the, "46% of 
everyone things the bill sucks, because it doesn't do enough.", version 
of it?

Sorry for the rant, but I am getting real tired of this crap. Obama 
isn't trying to undermine the American way of life, and if anything, 
isn't fracking trying hard enough to do what should be done, so pisses 
me off to no end a lot of the time. The Republicans haven't had anything 
to offer at all for 20 years on the subject (or at least since fracking 
Nixon, who also failed to pass anything at all), and the only thing that 
has changed is that now they don't want to even negotiate to pass 
anything at all (if they did, 50% of the crap in the bill, including the 
damn "individual mandate" which 14 states are now trying to challenge, 
where ***Republican*** inclusions, which he compromised on adding, in 
hopes to get bipartisan support). What has happened is that we have a 
badly compromised bill, which doesn't encourage competition, contains 
**nothing** in it about new taxes, or the like, no language adding 
abortion coverage, or any of about 50 other lies told about it, but 
which also does almost nothing that would stop the insurance companies, 
which are already nearly 30% of the national economy, and in the last 
few years have raised rates 40-60% in various places, *during* a 
financial crisis, from ending up owning 50%, or 80%, or even, now that 
they can, thanks to five people on the Supreme Court, basically buy up 
any politician they want, 90%? of the entire economy. I mean, if they 
own the government (via massive election funding campaigns), who is 
going to challenge them on having monopolies, or excessive influence?

-- 
void main () {
   If Schrödingers_cat is alive or version > 98 {
     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message