Obama Care Could Be Deadly

dohdough said:
:rofl: You have one SERIOUS persecution complex, buddy!

Pop quiz: How many presidents have been impeached?

Extra Credit Question: What political party were they?
Click to expand...
That is my whole point exactly. Nixon was impeached for a petty break in to see what they were planning and he was way ahead and was going to win anyway. He was clearly a nutcase.

But you are telling me Watergate is worst than the

-Eric Holder with Fast and Furious selling guns to criminals that end up killing Americans,

-Benghazi where they lied about how it happened and 4 Americans got killed because of their incompetence,

-the NSA Scandal and constant new disgusting revelations each day about how our privacy is being invaded,

-Obamacare — A massive and incredibly convoluted bill which exponentially increases the federal government’s control over our personal lives…which neither Obama nor a single Democrat even read before passing, and which will likely bankrupt the nation.

-Billions of taxpayer dollars gambled on “green” companies like Solyndra, NextEra, Ener1, Solar Trust and many others — all of which went bankrupt.

- $6 trillion in new national debt under Obama…after he promised to decrease the deficit.

-In both the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections, the Obama campaign purposely disabled the credit card verification system for its Web site donations, allowing anyone from any foreign country to donate with no limit and no proof of identity; in both elections it was demonstrated that people overseas and people with obviously false identities were able to donate to Obama campaign, in direct violation of several laws. To this day it is not known what percentage of Obama’s campaign funds are illegally obtained, since there is no documentation.

- Unemployment at or above 8% for almost his entire term in office (which was actually closer to 15% actual unemployment).

Do you really want me to continue because I have not even begun to scrape the surface? So many of those are impeachable offenses it is not even funny.

 
Nixon being a Republican and being impeached has nothing to do with the scandals Obama has committed.

You have to change the topic cuz u cant face the fact Obama is getting away with a liberal media and hence why he hasnt been impeached. If Obama was Nixon there would be no impeachment.

So you are basically saying break-in at the Democratic National committee headquarters is worse than knowingly letting Americans die and all the other scandals he has created.

LOL liberal blowhards are always funny.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RPGNinja said:
Nixon being a Republican and being impeached has nothing to do with the scandals Obama has committed.

You have to change the topic cuz u cant face the fact Obama is getting away with a liberal media and hence why he hasnt been impeached. If Obama was Nixon there would be no impeachment.

So you are basically saying break-in at the Democratic National committee headquarters is worse than knowingly letting Americans die and all the other scandals he has created.

LOL liberal blowhards are always funny.
Click to expand...
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=impeached+us+presidents
 
dohdough said:
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=impeached+us+presidents
Click to expand...
The House Judiciary Committee voted on Articles of Impeachment for President Richard Nixon, but he resigned before the full House of Representatives could vote on any articles. Since the entire House did not vote, Nixon was never impeached.

We knew he was going to be impeached let's not kid ourselves it would have been a witch hunt. Coupled with the fact that Nixon was a well known hater of the press and it often got very contentious during press conferences.

Regardless you keep focusing on this instead of Obama's many scandals which proves how much of a blind zombie you really are.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RPGNinja said:
The House Judiciary Committee voted on Articles of Impeachment for President Richard Nixon, but he resigned before the full House of Representatives could vote on any articles. Since the entire House did not vote, Nixon was never impeached.

We knew he was going to be impeached let's not kid ourselves it would have been a witch hunt. Coupled with the fact that Nixon was a well known hater of the press and it often got very contentious during press conferences.

Regardless you keep focusing on this instead of Obama's many scandals which proves how much of a blind zombie you really are.
Click to expand...
So no Republican President of the United States of America has ever been impeached...I'm glad that we finally have some actual facts come out of your posts.

That still doesn't answer any of my 2 questions in regards to who WAS impeached and WHICH POLITICAL PARTY they belong to.

edit: When you get those facts straight, then we can move onto the bigger issues of me being a blind zombie.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dohdough said:
So no Republican President of the United States of America has ever been impeached...I'm glad that we finally have some actual facts come out of your posts.

That still doesn't answer any of my 2 questions in regards to who WAS impeached and WHICH POLITICAL PARTY they belong to.

edit: When you get those facts straight, then we can move onto the bigger issues of me being a blind zombie.
Click to expand...
Why are you so hung up on this? Are you really trying to avoid all the scandals of Obama?

And no Nixon was GOING to be impeached, he resigned before he could. Learn to read.

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and so was Andrew Johnson. Clinton was a Democrat and Andrew Johnson was irrelevant because Democrat and Republicans back then were totally different than today.

The Republicans were the ones who passed the Civil Rights Act and the Democrats were the racist scumbags.

So now that you are done with going off topic tell me why he SHOULDN'T be impeached at the very least with all the crimes he has committed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RPGNinja said:
Why are you so hung up on this? Are you really trying to avoid all the scandals of Obama?
Click to expand...
Not at all. We're going to get to that as soon as we have an established baseline for the limits of your ability to twist facts to fit your ideology.

And no Nixon was GOING to be impeached, he resigned before he could. Learn to read.
Click to expand...
GOING to be impeached is quite different from actually BEING impeached. You originally made the assertion that Obama has done things that would get any other president impeached, especially if they were a Republican. This is straight out of Crazytown(tm).

Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and so was Andrew Johnson. Clinton was a Democrat and Andrew Johnson was irrelevant because Democrat and Republicans back then were totally different than today.
Click to expand...
LOLZ...I know this is a slip of your literary tongue, but with the line below, you're basically saying that Republicans are the "racist scumbags" of today. :rofl:

The northern Republicans(and northern Democrats) were the ones who passed the Civil Rights Act and the southern Democrats(and southern Republicans) were the racist scumbags.
Click to expand...
Fixed that for ya. You don't have to thank me.

So now that you are done with going off topic tell me why he SHOULDN'T be impeached at the very least with all the crimes he has committed.
Click to expand...
It's not off-topic if you can't get your basic facts and definitions right. Reagan and Bush(both of them) were all Republicans that did the same things as the ones you accuse of Obama of doing and they were never impeached. Or maybe the Iran/Contra scandal doesn't count because...(you can fill in the blank here).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
dohdough said:
Not at all. We're going to get to that as soon as we have an established baseline for the limits of your ability to twist facts to fit your ideology.

GOING to be impeached is quite different from actually BEING impeached. You originally made the assertion that Obama has done things that would get any other president impeached, especially if they were a Republican. This is straight out of Crazytown(tm).

Not at all, because you are a liberal you don't know liberal bias when you see it.

LOLZ...I know this is a slip of your literary tongue, but with the line below, you're basically saying that Republicans are the "racist scumbags" of today. :rofl:

It's not off-topic if you can't get your basic facts and definitions right. Reagan and Bush(both of them) were all Republicans that did the same things as the ones you accuse of Obama of doing and they were never impeached. Or maybe the Iran/Contra scandal doesn't count because...(you can fill in the blank here).
Click to expand...
Not at all, because you are a liberal you don't know liberal bias when you see it.

Do you even know how long ago the Civil Rights act was? It is recent history. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. That statement wasn't being applied to Andrew Johnson. What I was saying was its funny how people forget Republicans were the civil rights party and Democrats are (and still are) the racists of today. Why else when they lose an argument do they feel the need to say Obama is black and that is why you are against him? Lol nice try.

Really Reagan and Bush deliberately tried to destroy the country? I am no fan of the Iraq War but that was Bush trying to suck up to his daddy and get revenge. Obama is fundamentally trying to change the country into a socialist state.

You clearly don't know the difference and hence why you need to be educated. And let's not forget Obama has ran up more debt than every previous president COMBINED. This coming from a guy who said HIMSELF that having that much is an impeachable offense.

But hey don't take my word for it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6fUmFBMVWNI

He said raising the debt was unpatriotic and irresponsible. It makes sense you defend him, you both continually lie and shift positions.

And please do list ALL the things Reagan and Bush did that were the same as Obama. Remember I said my list wasn't done so I can keep listing even more stuff if you want.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RPGNinja said:
Not at all, because you are a liberal you don't know liberal bias when you see it.
Click to expand...
Hmmm...so me saying that no Republican president has ever been impeached is liberal bias, huh? Yeah, facts tend to have a liberal bias. :rofl:

Do you even know how long ago the Civil Rights act was? It is recent history. You need to work on your reading comprehension skills. That statement wasn't being applied to Andrew Johnson. What I was saying was its funny how people forget Republicans were the civil rights party and Democrats are (and still are) the racists of today. Why else when they lose an argument do they feel the need to say Obama is black and that is why you are against him? Lol nice try.
Click to expand...
Reading comprehension would explain that your snippet about Republicans being the party of civil rights and the Democrats being the party of racist scumbags, in conjunction with your statement about Johnson's party being irrelevant because the parties were different in modern day, would mean the exact opposite of what you're trying to imply. In matter of fact, you're just straight up contradicting yourself in the same way again in your most recent post.

Really Reagan and Bush deliberately tried to destroy the country? I am no fan of the Iraq War but that was Bush trying to suck up to his daddy and get revenge. Obama is fundamentally trying to change the country into a socialist state.
Click to expand...
Yeah, implementing 20 year old Republican ideas is definitely a formula for creating a socialist state. Maybe if you're an accelerationist, that'd be true...and that's only if you knew what the terms "socialism" and "accelerationist" really meant. Maybe you should hit up the conservapedia and humor us with those entries.

Btw, "deliberately tried to destroy the country" is a bit hyperbolic, don't you think?

You clearly don't know the difference and hence why you need to be educated. And let's not forget Obama has ran up more debt than every previous president COMBINED. This coming from a guy who said HIMSELF that having that much is an impeachable offense.
Click to expand...
I don't know the difference about what? YOU'RE the one that said that made false assertions about impeachment; not me.

But hey don't take my word for it.

He said raising the debt was unpatriotic and irresponsible. It makes sense you defend him, you both continually lie and shift positions.
Click to expand...
Ha? Point out where I lied.

As for shifting positions, you've weaved a very complex web of bullshit for me to untangle, so please excuse me for not doing it all at once. I AM at work after all.

And please do list ALL the things Reagan and Bush did that were the same as Obama. Remember I said my list wasn't done so I can keep listing even more stuff if you want.
Click to expand...
FYI, I'm actually not a huge fan of Obama and I already gave you the example of the Iran/Contra scandal. I realize that you prefer the shotgun approach because that allows you to throw up as much craziness as you want to see what sticks, but my slow liberal brain can't keep up with all of your genius, so please, go easy on me. :rofl:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
RPGNinja said:
And please do list ALL the things Reagan and Bush did that were the same as Obama. Remember I said my list wasn't done so I can keep listing even more stuff if you want.
Click to expand...
I'm going to ignore most of the fighting going on between you two, because I want to focus on one point:

During Reagan's administration, the deficit went from 1 trillion to 4 trillion.

Factor in inflation, and 4 trillion back then is equal to about 13 trillion today.

Since the deficits are about on par in terms of real purchasing value (i.e., what you can buy), I believe the following comparison is a fair one:

The bailout started with W, before Obama added on to it. So in terms of scale of change:

Reagan quadrupled our deficit

Obama less than tripled it.

And yet Reagan is the one championed as "fiscally responsible."

(And before you start making assumptions of my political leanings, I like Nixon, Bush Sr, and Clinton. I hate Carter. Though to be fair, I think everyone hates Carter)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rasen said:
I'm going to ignore most of the fighting going on between you two, because I want to focus on one point:

During Reagan's administration, the deficit went from 1 trillion to 4 trillion.

Factor in inflation, and 4 trillion back then is equal to about 13 trillion today.

Since the deficits are about on par in terms of real purchasing value (i.e., what you can buy), I believe the following comparison is a fair one:

The bailout started with W, before Obama added on to it. So in terms of scale of change:

Reagan quadrupled our deficit

Obama less than tripled it.

And yet Reagan is the one championed as "fiscally responsible."

(And before you start making assumptions of my political leanings, I like Nixon, Bush Sr, and Clinton. I hate Carter. Though to be fair, I think everyone hates Carter)
Click to expand...
You sounds like an Obama lover to me. Only Liberal blind zombies defend Obama.

-RPGNinja
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rasen said:
I'm going to ignore most of the fighting going on between you two, because I want to focus on one point:

During Reagan's administration, the deficit went from 1 trillion to 4 trillion.

Factor in inflation, and 4 trillion back then is equal to about 13 trillion today.

Since the deficits are about on par in terms of real purchasing value (i.e., what you can buy), I believe the following comparison is a fair one:

The bailout started with W, before Obama added on to it. So in terms of scale of change:

Reagan quadrupled our deficit

Obama less than tripled it.

And yet Reagan is the one championed as "fiscally responsible."

(And before you start making assumptions of my political leanings, I like Nixon, Bush Sr, and Clinton. I hate Carter. Though to be fair, I think everyone hates Carter)
Click to expand...
Not a big fan of Reagan personally but I am going to go ahead and put Obama under one of the worst presidents this country has ever seen. No hope, no change.

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
Not a big fan of Reagan personally but I am going to go ahead and put Obama under one of the worst presidents this country has ever seen. No hope, no change.
Click to expand...
Everyone's free to their opinions. I'd place him at about average, but if the argument is "no hope, no change" = "one of the worst," that really applies to every politician ever.

That being said, just remember that W/Cheney was SO BAD, that an African-American got elected. That's how angry the country was.

What's going on right now doesn't even compare. Yet. (His approval level is lower than Bush's, when comparing their 5th years, but then the economy hadn't nearly collapsed yet either.)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Rasen said:
Everyone's free to their opinions. I'd place him at about average, but if the argument is "no hope, no change" = "one of the worst," that really applies to every politician ever.

That being said, just remember that W/Cheney was SO BAD, that an African-American got elected. That's how angry the country was.

What's going on right now doesn't even compare. Yet. (His approval level is lower than Bush's, when comparing their 5th years, but then the economy hadn't nearly collapsed yet either.)
Click to expand...
Yeah but everyone was excited to a point where many thought he was a messiah. Unfortunately he was a huge let down and broke most of his promises.

If I am not mistaken his approval ratings have gone below Bushes and are close to Nixon's. Problem is that he just doesn't know how to get the country back on track and initially was too focused on ACA when Economy was suffering as were the people.

 
No question Obama is a historically bad president.  Probably the worst in most of our lifetimes, though for me at least, you could make a case for Carter.  The damage he has done to our country is almost incalcuable, though the full impact will not be felt for a number of years.  Obama though definitely is one of the worst two term presidents in history, sadly far worse than even George W. Bush.

 
mrsilkunderwear said:
Yeah but everyone was excited to a point where many thought he was a messiah. Unfortunately he was a huge let down and broke most of his promises.

If I am not mistaken his approval ratings have gone below Bushes and are close to Nixon's. Problem is that he just doesn't know how to get the country back on track and initially was too focused on ACA when Economy was suffering as were the people.
Click to expand...
*shrugs* People only have themselves to blame for getting their hopes that far up. Anyone who thinks a politician is going to keep their campaign promises....really doesn't remember much about politicians. Obama's done all I expected of him (send a message that there is a limit to how evil you can present yourself before people will elect ANYBODY in the other party. Or possibly anything. I know in 2008, I would have elected Cuisinart, so long as it was a Democrat. McCain DID make my choice difficult at first. Then he brought in Palin.)

Regarding the approval ratings, I believe, though I could be wrong, that they're comparing approval ratings at the same point in their presidency. (so, 5th year). Like I said above, the economy hadn't tanked yet, the bank scandals hadn't broke, so people were only angry about Iraq at the time (2005).

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dopa345 said:
No question Obama is a historically bad president. Probably the worst in most of our lifetimes, though for me at least, you could make a case for Carter. The damage he has done to our country is almost incalcuable, though the full impact will not be felt for a number of years. Obama though definitely is one of the worst two term presidents in history, sadly far worse than even George W. Bush.
Click to expand...
The historically bad damage I've seen him do so far, is draw out the absolute worst in the attitudes of the Republican Party. (Calling him a Kenyan, a Muslim, "terrorist fist jab," ....Obama can't do anything without it being compared to the Holocaust, HItler, Apartheid, etc. etc.....putting aside whether his actions are good or bad, it is incredibly insulting to the people who actually suffered from things like the Holocaust to whatever piddly thing is coming up today)

I remember, on day 1 of his Presidency, either Boehner or McConnel, said on TV "Our goal is to make sure he does not get a second term." This offended me, because as the economy had appeared to be in a tailspin at the time, I would have hoped their goal should have been "help the economy recover."

And the two are conflicting goals.

Because how do you make sure someone doesn't get re-elected? You make sure the country gets WORSE during their term, so that people get so angry at them that they elect someone else in. (And because of that Day 1 statement, I HAVE to view any action taken by Republicans skeptically.)

What happened instead was the economy leveled off and has had a disappointing recovery and job growth. Believe me when I say that Disappointing Recovery >>>> Economy continues to fall. (And that's why he got re-elected. Because people weren't disappointed ENOUGH.)

--

Anything about the deficit: see my point about Reagan.

Anything about the NSA: you're kidding yourself if you think it started with Obama. (What did you think the Patriot Act was going to do? To be fair, it didn't start then either. The Patriot Act just made it legal.)

The ACA IS a problem, no doubt. Maybe it'll get repealed. But in terms of damage to the country, I don't see it as worse than the Iraq war, or in retrospect, selling weapons to Osama Bin Laden.(The website problem is a minor thing, because the same things happened with Medicare Part D)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
dopa345 said:
No question Obama is a historically bad president. Probably the worst in most of our lifetimes, though for me at least, you could make a case for Carter. The damage he has done to our country is almost incalcuable, though the full impact will not be felt for a number of years. Obama though definitely is one of the worst two term presidents in history, sadly far worse than even George W. Bush.
Click to expand...
I can't believe someone as dumb as you is a doctor. I guess I can, but it's disheartening.

 
Poorly implemented, poorly designed, and poorly enforced along with a massive dose of "over budget-itis". The cornerstones of every federal gov't program. I do also like how the CBO is reporting the massive incentive to not work that this type of gov't subsidy and welfare program instills in people. A great example of how well meaning policies produce a backlash of cultural degeneracy in America. Thanks federal gov't!

 
he deserves to have social security or welfare, or the like, etc. named after him? think so?  also name some streets in the ghetto after him.  too bad everyone who voted for him in the ghetto smokes crack.  mr. black birds on my shoulder.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msutt, just wanted to get your thoughts on the "Loud Music" trial in Florida. I think the guy is crazy. Shoots the guy, claims he felt threatened, NEVER CALLS THE COPS!!!!!! Nothing at all like the Martin/Zimmerman case where Z calls the cops and has an eye witness. It is funny to see the "news" constantly make comparisons. Race appears to be the only thing they consider, who needs FACTS...

 
Soc27cer said:
whats racist about it? if you aren't referring to me, ignore this. common sense isn't for everyone evidently. the way i see it obama isn't black anyway. the only thing that seemed to be black about him was a father who was not around.

(how he came into being elected was incredibly racist to me.)
Click to expand...
The ghetto part?

 
Hey so has Obamacare killed all of you guys yet?

I only ask because I am Canadian and as the article in the OP suggested we are all literally dead right now.

 
The Crotch said:
Hey so has Obamacare killed all of you guys yet?

I only ask because I am Canadian and as the article in the OP suggested we are all literally dead right now.
Click to expand...
i like the canadian stance on pure MDMA, drug addicts need healthcare too!

...but seriously, healthcare should be available to anyone who truly needs it, through no profits and hospital protocol etc, but it shouldn't be a major issue, it seems like they are blowing something out of proportion, while other matters need to be addressed. short sighted and in the wrong direction. china is the 99% in my mind.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
HowStern said:
The UK isn't the ideal model system. It's the most well-known besides Canada. But the one to look at is France.

http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/08/11/frances_model_healthcare_system/

They spend half of what we do per person. 99% of their population is covered. And they were
Click to expand...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2269938/France-totally-bankrupt-jobs-minister-admits-concerns-grow-Hollandes-tax-spend-policies.html

France is 'totally bankrupt', jobs minister admits as concerns grow over Hollande's tax-and-spend policies

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2269938/France-totally-bankrupt-jobs-minister-admits-concerns-grow-Hollandes-tax-spend-policies.html#ixzz2tBz7yRij
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Hhahahahahahaahahahahhaa......

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2014/02/12/stalinist_lawlessness_companies_must_swear_to_irs_they_didn_t_fire_employees_because_of_obamacare

The point of this is that this limit of 100 is a golden opportunity for businesses to, once again, fire people to get under that number of 100 so that they are eligible for the delay of the mandate. So what the Obama Regime has done, is said firms and businesses are going to be required to certify to the IRS -- under penalty of perjury -- that Obamacare was not a motivating factor in their staffing decisions.

I mean, this is absolutely lawless. It is against the law. They cannot, ladies and gentlemen, do this. Specifically, they cannot run businesses this way. They cannot turn staffing decisions into crimes, and this is exactly what they're doing. Businesses make decisions all the time on the basis of avoidance of costs here and costs there, labor costs, tax costs. They do it all the time -- and this is a tax.

Don't forget, the Supreme Court claimed that all of this is constitutional because these mandates are just taxes. They're not mandates to buy a product. That would be unconstitutional. Of course, that doesn't matter now anyway.

Is this true? If so then Obama is covering his ass like crazy against the possible job losses caused by Obamacare. Most transparent admin EVAH!!!!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Soc27cer said:
i like the canadian stance on pure MDMA, drug addicts need healthcare too!

...but seriously, healthcare should be available to anyone who truly needs it, through no profits and hospital protocol etc, but it shouldn't be a major issue, it seems like they are blowing something out of proportion, while other matters need to be addressed. short sighted and in the wrong direction. china is the 99% in my mind.
Click to expand...
I agree. The argument is over who gets to pay for the doctors and nurses. Did we all agree that we would all chip in to pay for drug addicts, alcoholics, obese people, smokers, etc? We are accountable for them?

 
egofed said:
I agree. The argument is over who gets to pay for the doctors and nurses. Did we all agree that we would all chip in to pay for drug addicts, alcoholics, obese people, smokers, etc? We are accountable for them?
Click to expand...
The thing you keep forgetting is we ALREADY were accountable for them, when they go running to the emergency room and don't have insurance.

And then we pay MORE, because there's no insurance company to negotiate a lower price.

 
egofed said:
I agree. The argument is over who gets to pay for the doctors and nurses. Did we all agree that we would all chip in to pay for drug addicts, alcoholics, obese people, smokers, etc? We are accountable for them?
Click to expand...
Says the guy who quotes Rush Limbaugh non-ironically.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
So I can't quote someone who has been wrong or said something stupid even when they make a good point? Who can I quote? Rachel Maddow? Ed? Obama? They are all people, who like Rush, have lied and "embellished" stories to make their point or further their career. Would you even care to comment on the situation in which the gov't is telling businesses they can't blame the ACA for firing people? You also never commented on the "Lucy" audio I posted. She basically said that working stiffs are suckers because the gov't provides for her, her husband, and her three kids.

 
Rasen said:
The thing you keep forgetting is we ALREADY were accountable for them, when they go running to the emergency room and don't have insurance.

And then we pay MORE, because there's no insurance company to negotiate a lower price.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your point, mainly because I am the guy who takes these idiots to the ER for non life threatening conditions on a daily bases. We are not supposed to refuse transport to anyone who wants to go to the ER. What I am requesting is a system that makes them accountable for their actions and choices. If you take care of people who are allowed to do whatever they wish without any repercussions, then they breed more people who take up that same ideology. Where are the ideas that will truly end this cycle?

 
egofed said:
So I can't quote someone who has been wrong or said something stupid even when they make a good point?
Click to expand...
He didnt make a good point. Also, he happens to be obese, a smoker, a drinker and abused illegal opiates. I guess it flew over your head when you made the reference to all of the above.

 
i don't want to go to school for fifteen years only to get paid an average wage.....  I've already wasted time and money, i won't do my job very well.   but ignore what doctors say.

i believe that obama would see to it burger king workers got paid the same....   just saying.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Msut77 said:
He didnt make a good point. Also, he happens to be obese, a smoker, a drinker and abused illegal opiates. I guess it flew over your head when you made the reference to all of the above.
Click to expand...
Rush has an income, pays taxes, and likely doesn't abuse the ER at his local hospital. He's probably not receiving SNAP or other welfare benefits either. I do not demand accountability from Rush because tax payers are not taking care of him. You can understand that, right?

I also don't see how you consider that the gov't is requiring private businesses to certify their reasons for trimming their employees are not related to the ACA as a total abuse of power for purely political reasons.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top