PDA

View Full Version : Obama Obamacares ugly history


HonestChieffan
07-04-2012, 12:53 PM
And dems wonder why the majority of people want it dead

http://m.spectator.org/169477/show/f1ab888050fb1f2d912fc95950c8bfe9/?

Amid John Roberts' craven surrender to "the political branches" on Obamacare -- a bizarre capitulation, at that, since Roberts honored a statute that he hallucinated, but neither Congress nor the president authored nor authorized -- Americans should remember just how many rules, standards, and traditions had to be twisted or bulldozed in order for the [un]Affordable Care Act to become law.
For Obamacare to be enacted in the first place required each of more than a dozen, highly unlikely or even suspect, occurrences or actions. It then took some serious constitutional hocus pocus for it to survive in court. Consider the awful litany:
First, rogue prosecutors, drunk with bloodlust, had to break all sorts of rules in order to secure the conviction of Alaska's U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens. (Stevens, in his hubris, also had to insist on a speedy trial he thought would clear his name before the election of 2008, when in fact it resulted in the conviction that sealed his electoral fate.) Also, Judge Emmet Sullivan, a no-nonsense jurist, had to decide not to declare a mistrial before the verdict despite growing evidence of prosecutorial misconduct. (Sullivan didn't necessarily err; he just didn't have enough proof of misconduct yet. When it came, post-trial, he cracked down fairly hard on the scofflaws.) Had Stevens been re-elected, he presumably would never have voted for Obamacare, which therefore would have failed by one vote… even if none of the other, subsequent abominations (as we will discuss) were forestalled.
Second, the Democrats had to succeed in flat-out stealing the election for a Minnesota-based U.S. Senate seat from Republican Norm Coleman. In addition to securing the counting of highly questionable "votes" throughout the recount process, the Democrats also likely benefited from the illegal votes of hundreds of felons. Had Coleman been re-elected, there is no way he would have voted for Obamacare, which therefore -- cue the refrain -- would have failed by one vote… even if none of the other, subsequent abominations (as we will discuss) were forestalled.
Third (although chronologically first), the Washington Post had to succeed in its unprecedentedly and viciously unfair coverage of the U.S. Senate race in Virginia, both capitalizing on Sen. George Allen's missteps (he ran a terrible campaign) and skewing the "news" relentlessly against him even when he didn't make mistakes. Had he not lost by a tiny 8,805-vote margin, there is no way he would have voted for Obamacare, which therefore -- cue the refrain -- would have failed by one vote… even if none of the other, subsequent abominations (as we will discuss) were forestalled.
(Parenthetically, without as direct a link either to skullduggery or to a the clearly relevant time frame, would-be Obamacare opponents also likely would have been in office in several other states under ordinary circumstances. In New Jersey, liberal Democrat Frank Lautenberg had returned to the Senate in 2002 due to a logically and legally unsupportable state supreme court ruling allowing him to replace Robert Torricelli on the ballot after the legal deadline. In Montana, Republicans shot themselves in the foot in 2006 by not pressuring incumbent Conrad Burns into retirement following his association with the Jack Abramoff scandal; he lost an otherwise safe seat by less than one percent of the vote. And it didn't help that in Oregon, incumbent Republican Gordon Smith lost another close race largely due to votes siphoned away from him -- perfectly legitimately, but still frustratingly -- by a candidate of the Constitution Party.)
Fourth, there clearly were good reasons to believe Sens. Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu would refuse to keep the Obamacare legislation alive had it not been for (respectively) the infamous Cornhusker Kickback and Louisiana Purchase agreements. Granted, horse-trading is always part of politics (e.g.: Louisiana's John Breaux handing a key vote to Ronald Reagan after declaring "my vote isn't for sale, but it is for rent"), but these special Obamacare deals smelled particularly rancid. (For that matter, Democrats had to promise more compromise than they ever intended to deliver in order to secure support in committee from Republican Olympia Snowe, who voted to keep it alive only to have her hopes forsaken by the final shape of the bill. Yes, the bill would have passed committee anyway, but it's also incontrovertible that some Democrats in both chambers excused later procedural votes for the package by describing it as "bipartisan," based solely on Snowe's committee vote.)
Fifth, Harry Reid had to play parliamentary hardball (and Mitch McConnell had to let him get away with it) in order to force the key vote on initial Senate passage before the Senate left for Christmas break of 2009 -- whereas if senators had gone home for Christmas and heard first-hand the intensity of public opposition, not even the various Kickbacks and Purchases (and other special deals) would have sufficed to keep some of the senators on board for the one-vote victory.
Sixth, the Senate had to pull other procedural rabbits from its hat in order to make up for not letting the House originate a revenue-raising bill and to make up for the loss of Massachusetts' Senate seat to Scott Brown. Chief among these was taking an orphan House bill and stripping everything from the bill but the number, replacing the entire text with the text of Obamacare. Again, this is legal, but hardly an admirable way to force through a bill of this size and importance on a party-line vote.
Seventh, Arlen Specter abandoned the entire five previous years of his public pledges and posturing -- pledges without which he never would have been re-elected in 2004 -- by switching parties in a nakedly unprincipled bid to somehow, some way hold onto power. Had he been running for re-election in a Republican primary rather than a Democratic one, there is no way on Earth he would have voted for the health-care monstrosity.
Eighth, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid had to orchestrate the most dishonest set of bait-and-switch procedural maneuvers seen in Congress in decades in order to secure shifting bare-majorities for elements of ObamaCare, so as to give their own members various degrees of deniability for passage of the whole -- which, clearly, could not and would not have passed in a straight-up vote held without any subterfuge.
Ninth, the administration and congressional Democrats had to use major legerdemain to avoid budgetary procedural shoals by mis-labeling some spending, and double-counting some savings, in order to claim to be not busting budget rules that rather clearly were actually being busted. Had the Congressional Budget Office been able to officially (and accurately) project the bills as budget busters, Democrats would never have been able to muster the super-majorities needed for passage.
Tenth, Barack Obama had to twist more arms than a championship wrestler in order to get enough House members in line to bring passage of the bill even within striking range.
Then, eleventh, he had to fool enough pro-life Democrats (who had to be stupid enough or cynical enough to let themselves be "fooled") into believing that an executive order from him could carry enough of the force of law to ensure that no public funds would be used for abortions, and that his administration would actually observe both the letter and the spirit of that order. (The final, official House tally was 219-212, but the de facto passage was by only one vote -- several of the "aye" votes would not have switched in that direction at the last minute unless they had enough "cover" to say they weren't the single vote that pushed it over the top.)
Twelfth, as has been well documented, the administration and Democrats had to argue first that the individual mandate's penalty was not a tax (in order to round up congressional votes), then had to argue in some courts that it was a tax (for some purposes) and in other courts that it wasn't a tax (for other purposes), and then have to use the "it's a tax" argument as a Hail-Mary afterthought in its Supreme Court argument even while knowing full well that if they somehow won the case on that basis, they would immediately disavow in public the very argument they used to win the case.
That, therefore, was the rancid sausage John Roberts apparently felt he had to salvage in supposed deference to the sanctity of the legislative process.
Even then, with the law having already experienced numerous near-death experiences and survived only on the basis of trickery and sheer dishonesty, this unconstitutional and illegitimate law -- and a deeply unpopular one with a majority of the public -- was on its death-bed again before Roberts lost his nerve. Roberts reportedly sided originally with those who would kill the law in its entirety. Logically, legally, constitutionally, he knew the law did not pass muster. Logically, legally, constitutionally, he also knew that the mandate's penalty in particular was not a tax. That's how he voted in conference, and that's what he was prepared to announce -- until Obama's pressure and public scolding from some editorial boards made Roberts blink.
So, in illegitimate moves number thirteen and fourteen, Roberts both said that 13) something not called a tax and not located in the revenue section of the bill and not really resembling a tax in most respects, and not amounting to a tax according to the "most straightforward" or "most natural" reading of the law, could nevertheless be assumed to be a tax for constitutional purposes if he squinted hard enough, used his imagination, and climbed through Alice's rabbit hole; and that 14) such a tax would be constitutionally legitimate even though it fits none of the definitions of acceptable taxes provided for in the Constitution's text itself.
As noted eloquently enough in so many other columns that no elaborate re-explanations will be attempted here, it is also worth noting that Roberts also had to strain for constitutional "support" by citing a mere aphorism of a private letter from Ben Franklin, with a highly pregnant ellipse to make the quote applicable at all; and that he had to wildly conflate tax breaks or incentives on ownership or activity with a new tax on inactivity (as if the two -- a tax on the one hand, and a tax exemption on the other -- are among the same species and breed of beast).
In sum, then, this most sweeping of economic legislation ever passed by Congress has survived every step of the process by trickery, dishonesty, or breathtaking sophistry, while being defibrillated back into a heartbeat several times only with the aid of hack science and dark arts worthy of an illicit union between Dr. Frankenstein and a skilled necromancer.
There will be time aplenty in the coming months to take apart Roberts' slipshod, intellectually illegitimate opinion clause by clause and argument by argument. There will be time enough to show that his transparent hackery quite devastatingly undermined the very "legitimacy" of the court that he made such a purely political decision to try to protect.
For now, though, it is worth studying the foregoing litany of injustices, committing it to memory, and letting its lessons burn with a cold fury in our brains and souls -- a well-considered and purposeful fury that impels us all to do everything necessary to counteract the baleful effects of this abomination, and to make sure such a creature never raises its horrendous head again. This law is (figuratively speaking) the spawn of vile political beasts. It must be decapitated.

|Zach|
07-04-2012, 01:08 PM
That asshole Obama probably stole all the spaces between our paragraphs as well. Add that victim card to the pile!

notorious
07-04-2012, 01:47 PM
Wall of text.

The short story:

The Democrats used every sleezy trick in the book to pass Obamacare. The system is a fucking joke.

RNR
07-04-2012, 01:59 PM
That asshole Obama probably stole all the spaces between our paragraphs as well. Add that victim card to the pile!

LMAO

Munson
07-04-2012, 02:02 PM
Wall of text.

The short story:

The Democrats used every sleezy trick in the book to pass Obamacare. The system is a ****ing joke.

I bet the Dems will cry foul if the Republicans use any of their own dirty tricks against them to repeal it.

BucEyedPea
07-04-2012, 02:15 PM
I bet the Dems will cry foul if the Republicans use any of their own dirty tricks against them to repeal it.

You can bet on it.

BucEyedPea
07-04-2012, 02:16 PM
Wall of text.

The short story:

The Democrats used every sleezy trick in the book to pass Obamacare. The system is a ****ing joke.

Yup, but they were the biggest criers of "Bush lied." ROFL

Then ends justifies the means and ethics dies another of it's million deaths.

La literatura
07-04-2012, 02:16 PM
Law in a democracy is like sausage. There's no pretty way of making it.

On the other hand, there's the story of the lady who pushed the wrong button.

notorious
07-04-2012, 02:35 PM
I hate the system. A bill should pass on merit instead of kickbacks and handouts for votes.

Both parties are guilty of abuse.

RNR
07-04-2012, 02:38 PM
I hate the system. A bill should pass on merit instead of kickbacks and handouts for votes.

Both parties are guilty of abuse.

That is a fact~

Brainiac
07-04-2012, 02:40 PM
That asshole Obama probably stole all the spaces between our paragraphs as well. Add that victim card to the pile!

Wall of text.

The short story:

The Democrats used every sleezy trick in the book to pass Obamacare. The system is a ****ing joke.
I clicked on the link and read the article on The American Spectator web site. The article is actually quite good. However, I hate trying to read a wall of text. You have to REALLY want to read the article to read an entire wall of text, and most people simply won't do it.

If I had posted the OP I would go back and edit it to add blank spaces between paragraphs so people could at least read it. It would take about 30 seconds. But that's me.

BucEyedPea
07-04-2012, 02:43 PM
That is a fact~

I agree~ :p

mikey23545
07-04-2012, 07:48 PM
What an utterly sickening litany of facts behind an unconstitutional freedom-stealing monstrosity.

At least it also serves as a list of amoral cowards who need to be removed from public office.

mikey23545
07-04-2012, 07:57 PM
That asshole Obama probably stole all the spaces between our paragraphs as well. Add that victim card to the pile!

Law in a democracy is like sausage. There's no pretty way of making it.

On the other hand, there's the story of the lady who pushed the wrong button.


You are actually comparing that woman's mistake to a recital of illegal and quasi-legal acts used to barely pass an unconstitutional bill that an overwhelming majority of Americans were against?

How do you two manage to sleep at night? Do one of you get to suck on Hussein's right ball, and the other gets the left one?

Comrade Crapski
07-04-2012, 10:23 PM
What an utterly sickening litany of facts behind an unconstitutional freedom-stealing monstrosity.

At least it also serves as a list of amoral cowards who need to be removed from public office.

:clap:

Amnorix
07-04-2012, 10:45 PM
What a bunch of pathetic whining. Seriously. Half of the story is just weird crap. The prosecution of Stevens was done during the BUSH Administration for God's sake. It was Holder who almost immediately dug into the situation, found misconduct, and moved to dismiss the guilty verdict.

And the individual mandate obviously is a tax. I'm sorry, but arguing that a "fee" collected by the IRS solely by reducing one's tax refund isn't a tax makes you sound pretty damn silly.

"Obama had to twist arms"? The Congressional leadership had to use parliamentary maneuvers?!? OMG!!!!111 Giggity.

:rolleyes:

suzzer99
07-05-2012, 12:14 AM
There is no butthurt like republican butthurt when they don't get their way.

Pawnmower
07-05-2012, 12:31 AM
Sad....the press is about as useful as the govt

mlyonsd
07-05-2012, 07:05 AM
What a bunch of pathetic whining. Seriously. Half of the story is just weird crap. The prosecution of Stevens was done during the BUSH Administration for God's sake. It was Holder who almost immediately dug into the situation, found misconduct, and moved to dismiss the guilty verdict.

And the individual mandate obviously is a tax. I'm sorry, but arguing that a "fee" collected by the IRS solely by reducing one's tax refund isn't a tax makes you sound pretty damn silly.

"Obama had to twist arms"? The Congressional leadership had to use parliamentary maneuvers?!? OMG!!!!111 Giggity.

:rolleyes:All the pathetic whining aside, it's bad law passed on false assumptions and lies.

CoMoChief
07-05-2012, 07:17 AM
All the pathetic whining aside, it's bad law passed on false assumptions and lies.

most liberals don't care about this at all.

suzzer99
07-05-2012, 07:24 AM
Republicans invented dirty tricks in congress (Newt Gingrich). Then the 2001-2006 crew took partisan ugliness to a whole new level (while also spending like drunken sailors).

Whining about dems using some kind of trick is either disingenuous or massively ignorant.

CoMoChief
07-05-2012, 07:44 AM
Republicans invented dirty tricks in congress (Newt Gingrich). Then the 2001-2006 crew took partisan ugliness to a whole new level (while also spending like drunken sailors).

Whining about dems using some kind of trick is either disingenuous or massively ignorant.

LMAO.

The ole' argument of "well if Bush did it then....."

Never gets old to libs.

Amnorix
07-05-2012, 07:47 AM
All the pathetic whining aside, it's bad law passed on false assumptions and lies.


I honestly have no idea whether it is or not. What I do know is that healthcare in this country is a complete mess and I'm hoping that this helps, at least on balance.

I do know that certain elements of the plan have been WIDELY praised. The ability to keep kids on parents' medical insurance until they are 26 is perhaps the best known example. So it isn't all bad, at the very least.

patteeu
07-05-2012, 07:56 AM
Republicans invented dirty tricks in congress (Newt Gingrich). Then the 2001-2006 crew took partisan ugliness to a whole new level (while also spending like drunken sailors).

If history started in 1994 and ended in 2006, that statement would have only been partly wrong.

suzzer99
07-05-2012, 09:58 AM
Tip O'Neil by most accounts was much more of a consensus builder. Newt tore all that down.

suzzer99
07-05-2012, 09:59 AM
LMAO.

The ole' argument of "well if Bush did it then....."

Never gets old to libs.

Yeah just like the old argument of "I'm a republican so I have zero sense of history and can get completely outraged about something my party was doing only a couple of years ago - because Fox News rewrites history whenever it needs to and keeps me living in the moment".

Also I'm not talking about Bush, I'm talking about the 2001-2006 Congress. The most hypocritical spending orgy while talking small govt the world has ever known. But of course you're insulated from this because you get all your news from propaganda sources. Even the National Review called out that Congress on being a disaster. Not only did they spend like maniacs, they also completely rewrote common practices to shun the democrats out of every committee meeting, every place the minority still had some say.

The massive arrogance of republicans every time they get in power to think there's a new world order and they can just tear the other party to pieces never ceases to amaze me. Look at 2010. This arrogance is always your party's downfall. Well since Ike.

Donger
07-05-2012, 10:05 AM
Wait, so Democrats are actually going to complain about Republicans using the exact same budget reconciliation process to repeal Obamacare that Democrats used to pass Obamacare?

LMAO

suzzer99
07-05-2012, 10:07 AM
Nope. That's the difference. Dems actually remember history more than 6 months back. Believe it or not, "Lame stream media" still points out democratic hypocrisy, even if they are a little biased.

Just like I'm sure FNC repeatedly pointed out that the individual mandate was a republican idea from the Heritage Foundation that republicans actively supported from 1994-2008. Until it became a monstrosity straight from the devil. Oh wait...

My entire baby boomer family has no idea the mandate was ever a republican idea. And they watch Fox News non-stop. That's not news, that's propaganda. And it can be really fucking powerful if you do it well. Roger Ailes basically wakes up every morning and decides what 40% of the country is going to be steaming mad about today. That's power.

patteeu
07-05-2012, 10:41 AM
Tip O'Neil by most accounts was much more of a consensus builder. Newt tore all that down.

Tip O'Neil had the benefit of a compliant minority. Not so with Gingrich. Gingrich had to deal with a minority that was used to getting it's way and wasn't willing to play second fiddle.

In any event, Newt Gingrich didn't invent dirty tricks in Congress.

patteeu
07-05-2012, 10:43 AM
Yeah just like the old argument of "I'm a republican so I have zero sense of history and can get completely outraged about something my party was doing only a couple of years ago - because Fox News rewrites history whenever it needs to and keeps me living in the moment".

Also I'm not talking about Bush, I'm talking about the 2001-2006 Congress. The most hypocritical spending orgy while talking small govt the world has ever known. But of course you're insulated from this because you get all your news from propaganda sources. Even the National Review called out that Congress on being a disaster. Not only did they spend like maniacs, they also completely rewrote common practices to shun the democrats out of every committee meeting, every place the minority still had some say.

The massive arrogance of republicans every time they get in power to think there's a new world order and they can just tear the other party to pieces never ceases to amaze me. Look at 2010. This arrogance is always your party's downfall. Well since Ike.

Have you been in a coma since 2006?

BucEyedPea
07-05-2012, 10:57 AM
Tip O'Neil by most accounts was much more of a consensus builder. Newt tore all that down.

Newt was more rhetoric than actual bite though. He worked to twist arms of freshmen congressmen behind the scenes, to get them to vote for the Clinton tax increase. Clinton was even on Bill O'Rly's admitting that Newt and he did have a workable relationship to get things done. Now, this doesn't mean there aren't other things that Clinton didn't like about him....but Gingrich is not a small govt Republican.

suzzer99
07-05-2012, 12:51 PM
Have you been in a coma since 2006?

Retiring Rep. blames ‘dumber’ public for atmosphere in Congress (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/234083-retiring-rep-blames-dumber-public-for-atmosphere-in-congress)

“It’s complete intolerance,” said Ackerman. “You can compromise between good, better, and best, and you can compromise between bad and worse and terrible. But you can’t compromise between good and evil. And now people look at the other side as a completely different kind of animal and say, ‘They are taking the country down the road to purgatory.’ ”

Snowe described it as being “always confined to the MSNBC or the Fox News prism.”

“That’s the way I describe it because it’s true. People see you in one channel or another and nothing in between,” she said.

“We are probably the only ones who watch both Fox and MSNBC. The public watches either one or the other, and they watch one or the other hoping that the guys on my side will kill the guys on the other side,” Ackerman said. “The Congress, both houses, both parties have to act like grown-ups and say that this is about policy. If it is about the presidency or if it’s about the majority in my House or your House, then it is never going to be about policy. Somebody is going to have to — not the four of us, but somebody is going to have to walk that back a few steps.”


The only problem is that a hell of a lot more people watch Fox than watch MSNBC. So your brainwashed brigade is winning, and dragging the country way around the bend with it.

CoMoChief
07-05-2012, 01:15 PM
Retiring Rep. blames ‘dumber’ public for atmosphere in Congress (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/234083-retiring-rep-blames-dumber-public-for-atmosphere-in-congress)



The only problem is that a hell of a lot more people watch Fox than watch MSNBC. So your brainwashed brigade is winning, and dragging the country way around the bend with it.

:spock:

No....the REAL problem is that most don't understand that both parties are corrupt as hell and bought paid for. The 2-party paradigm is a complete dog and pony show. Both parties work for the banking elite. The Bush's are no better/worse than Obama/Clinton.

Velvet_Jones
07-05-2012, 01:44 PM
I honestly have no idea whether it is or not. What I do know is that healthcare in this country is a complete mess and I'm hoping that this helps, at least on balance.

I do know that certain elements of the plan have been WIDELY praised. The ability to keep kids on parents' medical insurance until they are 26 is perhaps the best known example. So it isn't all bad, at the very least.

You are an idiot. Go save a puppy or something.

patteeu
07-05-2012, 02:07 PM
Retiring Rep. blames ‘dumber’ public for atmosphere in Congress (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/234083-retiring-rep-blames-dumber-public-for-atmosphere-in-congress)



The only problem is that a hell of a lot more people watch Fox than watch MSNBC. So your brainwashed brigade is winning, and dragging the country way around the bend with it.

Yes, I've noticed that ever since democrats decided to put partisan advantage ahead of success in the Iraq war, Washington has been a more bitterly divided place.

Amnorix
07-05-2012, 02:08 PM
You are an idiot. Go save a puppy or something.

This is your first day posting in how many months and this is the best you can come up with? Weak doesn't begin to describe it.

Velvet_Jones
07-05-2012, 02:28 PM
This is your first day posting in how many months and this is the best you can come up with? Weak doesn't begin to describe it.

Yep. You were a pussy the last time I posted. Some things don't change.

Amnorix
07-05-2012, 02:34 PM
Yep. You were a pussy the last time I posted. Some things don't change.


Like you dancing on strings...

RNR
07-05-2012, 03:16 PM
You are an idiot. Go save a puppy or something.

I like puppies to!!!
Signed
A reformed catholic mason NeoCon religious conservative~

greg63
07-06-2012, 10:10 PM
Wall of text.

The short story:

The Democrats used every sleezy trick in the book to pass Obamacare. The system is a ****ing joke.

True, but it really aught to be called Obamneycare shouldn't it, after all it was Mitt's model? Any debate Mitt thinks he can wage on healthcare will be a fiasco. Personally, for me, this years presidential race is like being asked to chose between arsenic and rat poisoning.

suzzer99
07-06-2012, 11:32 PM
:spock:

No....the REAL problem is that most don't understand that both parties are corrupt as hell and bought paid for. The 2-party paradigm is a complete dog and pony show. Both parties work for the banking elite. The Bush's are no better/worse than Obama/Clinton.

This I pretty much agree with. I just think the republicans brand of BS is a little more dangerous to the country at the moment. Mainly because I feel very strongly that this country will be better off with universal healthcare - despite all our other problems. That's about it.

tredadda
07-06-2012, 11:36 PM
That asshole Obama probably stole all the spaces between our paragraphs as well. Add that victim card to the pile!

ROFLROFLROFLROFL

CoMoChief
07-07-2012, 10:17 AM
This I pretty much agree with. I just think the republicans brand of BS is a little more dangerous to the country at the moment. Mainly because I feel very strongly that this country will be better off with universal healthcare - despite all our other problems. That's about it.

true republican/conservative view points is what this country was founded upon and is exactly what this country needs right now.

problem is, most of the republicans in DC aren't true republicans, and support big govt spending and are no more different than liberals, it's just different rhetoric.

suzzer99
07-07-2012, 12:25 PM
true republican/conservative view points is what this country was founded upon and is exactly what this country needs right now.

problem is, most of the republicans in DC aren't true republicans, and support big govt spending and are no more different than liberals, it's just different rhetoric.

Exactly. Neither is Mitt. He's gonna do almost the exact same thing as Obama except maybe a little more money for oil vs. green energy, appoint somewhat more conservative SCOTUS judges, and maybe more unfunded tax breaks. That's about it. They're both going to keep bending over for the military-industrial complex and big banks. Yet every conservative on this forum except you apparently thinks an Obama win is armageddon.

Even though I'm more liberal, I honestly don't think it's a bad idea to get a real small govt conservative in there to trim the fat every now and then - like Reagan sort of did except for leaving a deficit mess that Bush I had to clean up (and Newt sabotoged him for doing so). Problem is I don't know if that's even possible anymore. With Citizen's United politicians are more beholden to corporate interests than ever before.

I completely agree that food stamps are out of control in this country as is disability, public pensions and a bunch of other similar entitlements. But all that pales in comparison to the corporate socialism that's going on with the govt basically giving billions to banks - much of which goes straight to bonuses, military contractors, oil, ethanol subsidies, food subsidies (food stamps are a huge one) etc.

You guys can rail all you want about the damn freeloaders milking the system and taking your money. But you're ignoring the corporations that are sucking off the govt teat for 10-100x more than that.

Anyway that's my ramble. It's nice to meet one person on here who actually thinks for themselves and doesn't just spout party-line rhetoric. My cousin is a socially moderate, fiscal conservative republican. I think he and I agree on more when we talk politics than he does with the extreme right of his own party. He's pretty discouraged with the state of his party since 2000 or so.